Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

Unless one raises special arguments by virtue of the special nature of the abatement necessary to fully answer unlawful process, an abatement need never be longer than five or six pages.

"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule ... And, in the United States, actions taken by the Government in time of great crisis have - from, at least, the Civil War - in important ways, shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency." So stated 'Congress' in the Preamble of Congressional Report No. 93-549 issued November 19, 1973.
"Congress" has made little or no distinction between a "state of national emergency," and, "a state of war." Brown vs. Bernstein, D.C. Pa., 49 f. Supp. 728, 732.
"The most immediate effect of a state of war is that it activates the Law of War itself." "The Law of War," by Ingrid Deeter De Lupis, Cambridge University Press, page 300.

What does this have to do with foreclosures, you ask? It has everything to do with foreclosures!

Under this "permanent state of national emergency", all substance is removed from constitutional law and is replaced by The Law of War, which of course, is a fiction created by the de facto government, and is designed to plunder the real substance of the people, i.e., their lives, liberties, and property, to make payments against the War Debt, another fiction.

The Law of War, when implemented, invokes International and Municipal Law under which, all law is one-sided, in favor of the conquering power.

Thus, foreclosure proceedings are a mere formality (from the conquering power side) and the outcome is supposed to be a foregone conclusion - in theory.

Therefore, all parties in foreclosures, participate 'voluntarily,' and things proceed only if there is no conflict of laws. Conflict of laws cannot arise with a voluntarily appearance in personam or constructively (by attorney), because, as we all know, voluntary appearance 'perfects' all defects of process.

But, if foreclosure victims invoke any counter process that invokes a conflict of laws, either express or implied, a knotty problem is created.

Conquering powers often use extreme measures to 'encourage' voluntary appearance or 'compliance' in order for such powers to comply with the 'voluntary' aspect of international and municipal law, which automatically takes precedence over all man-made law, when The Laws of War are invoked.

Often, foreclosure victims may not respond to foreclosure processes, or if one responds it may not be as rapid as a foreclosure plaintiff wants.

Thus, nasty letters (which have no force and effect in law), threats, fear tactics, intimidation, and other techniques currently in vogue among agencies, bureaus, departments, and other entities of emergency powers governments, are all designed to compel 'voluntary' appearance.

This is true whether we face a traffic court, the I.R.S., or foreclosure proceedings.

But, if the victim fails to respond, or responds improperly, acquiescence takes place.

Under the international law doctrine of acquiescence, "demand and response must be rigidly complied with", and "represents the proposition of binding effect resulting from passivity and inaction with respect to foreign claims which, ...... usually call for protest in order to assert, preserve or safeguard rights." ("Encyclopedia of Public International Law," volume 7, page 5, under "Acquiescence.") Thus, one must respond - PROPERLY !!!.

The question is "HOW?"

Because the non-statutory abatement process raises the question of a conflict of law - before jurisdiction is established - it automatically reverses the burden of proof respecting the right or lawfulness of a foreclosure plaintiffs' claim.

And, it puts the shoe on the other foot. The international law, doctrine of acquiescence, now applies to one who was formerly a foreclosure plaintiff, but is now a defendant in an abatement action.

Therefore, if an abatement defendant does not respond, or ignores the abatement process, and continues his original foreclosure claim, he is in violation of International Law and The Law of War.

The form of such a non-statutory abatement process - against foreclosures - is relatively simple and has been used successfully in Oregon and California.

The conflict of law issue raised in the abatement, is the use of extended debt credit wherein no substance is involved, contrary to God's Law and common law.

With no true substance (hard money) involved in the original debt transaction, their can be no lawful claim to any title. The question of whether one has an allodial title, patent, grant deed, title deed, or mere possessory right, has no relevance to the case because such questions can only be raised when all parties, plaintiff, defendant, judge, etc., have lawful civil authority and process under a republican form of government, which cannot exist under The Laws of War.

Such questions of title are never the issue in a foreclosure action. This is why no matter how forceful or precise one argues his possession of "quiet title" or an allodial title, it has no real effect on the processes of international and municipal law.

Yes, some have won in courts by raising these arguments. But the victory is hollow because the defendant either retained his property because the plaintiff did not want it that bad, or the plaintiff's legal counsel or the judge, or both, were simply ignorant of the international law situation.

Thus, actions to quiet title can only be raised in lawful courts, by lawful process, where such courts sit under the lawful civil authority and sanction of the people through a lawfully formed jural society whose officers are lawfully elected by electors.

Contracts under international law are always contra bonos mores, i.e., "against good morals." "Contracts contra bonos mores are void."(Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th edition, page 322). And, we would only add, that international law is humanistic law and, as such, contracts are contra bonos mores because they are contrary to God's Law.

The substantial differences between the normal non-statutory abatements that we have used in the past and the current foreclosure abatement are, under the heading "Secondly," as follows:

Whereas, said alien enemy agents are attempting to use a form of money inimical to public welfare according to the standard set by the long standing custom and God's Law; and,
Whereas, you have created debt credit by mere book-keeping entries without any lawful dollars exchanged as evidenced by the DOLLAR sign with a single line vertically through the "S"; and,
Whereas, all contracts do not utilize or state dollars as being used or being loaned; and,
Whereas, no lawful money of the united States of America was actually loaned, only created credit was extended; and,
Whereas, loans of credit as indicated by your bookkeeping entries are unlawful in the united States of America and in your state; and,
Whereas, the use of the word dollar is inimical, since the Standard Unit of Value has been eradicated by Congress; and,
Whereas, your bank (or other lending entity) has not and cannot demand any species of kind that is not in existing circulation; and,
Whereas, the Federal Reserve is a private corporation issuing and using private script, which is usurious, and is Judaismus by nature, and is also counter to God's Law and the public welfare; and,
Whereas, your contract and the use of debt credit creates a Negative Pregnant; and,
Therefore, the threatened unlawfully imposed contract is contra bonos mores.

Although there are many conflicts in a typical abatement, this form attacks directly the bogus money situation in the nation.

There is one problem with abatements: PEOPLE WHO LIKE TO TINKER.

Since we began telling folks about abatements process, this has been the major problem. Everyone thinks they can improve the abatement by trying to argue a dozen other issues that cannot be raised in an abatement.

WE REPEAT: Abatements are dilatory pleas that challenge defects of PROCESS, NOT THE MERITS of a case.

The rule is: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I'm not saying the process we use is the ultimate answer or silver bullet and cannot be improved on.

But, when someone calls to complain when their abatement doesn't work and then faxes us their version of an abatement that's fourteen pages long, you know somethings wrong !!!

You find the abatement is full of venom, charges of fraud, gross language, and a host of other convoluted diatribes which, only make the judge mad and shams your own court.

Roman Law in Three Piece Togas:

by John Quade

From the time of Christ to the present, two, and only two, systems of law have dominated the Western world and they went wherever westerners set their foot in colonization throughout the world.

The first system has God for its author through His Law in the Scriptures, common law, and the law written on the heart of Christian men.

The second system has man for its author through the old Roman Codes, Rules, and Proclamations, and exists, not by Law, but by force of arms (vi et armis).

The first is now suppressed by the second through force dedicated to the god of war (Mars = Martial) worshiped in Rome.

Various authors will write series of articles with the idea of explaining Roman law in such a way as to show its true character as a counterfeit of the true Law of God.

The modern Roman system was resurrected by A. Lincoln and it has now been carried, worldwide, by the members of the Bar in three piece togas. It is the sole means by which they create and maintain all the fictions used to plunder, rape, and pillage the People wherever their jack-boots deface and pollute the land.

The articles will feature primarily the nature and use of words in the Roman system, because, once one understands what the words mean, all he need do is look about him to see their applications in the courts, on the highways, in governments, the United Nations, in fiscal and monetary policy, and in the social agenda of the radical left.

suae polestate esse vs. sui juris

A "lord of the soil," carries the sense of rights and powers inhering in the Christian Man by grace from God.

sui juris. - looks to rights and powers that come from enactments of men, i.e., statutes, codes, proclamations, ad nauseum.

jus pubficum

The law agreed upon by the lords of the soil and therefore any offense against it is a crime. See, lex non scripta and jus ex non scripto, and common law.

lex non scripta

The "law not written," or the law held in common by all Christian men, i.e., the common law.

jus ex non scripto

"Unwritten rights," are those rights and powers in the lex non scripta, i.e., the common law which are the property of the Christian man.

That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. (See Bouvier's Dictionary of Law (1859) Volume One, page 252.)

Up to now, words and phrases have favored our position except for sui juris, a term we prefer not to use for obvious reasons.

A word that should ring some bells is:

persona

Literally, the word means the "mask of the actor," i.e., a fictional character that substitutes for the flesh and blood man. From this word we get 'person' as a fictional entity created by governments under Martial Law.

This is a necessary use of the word because Martial Law powers, as fictions, can only deal with fictions, i.e., a person or persona

This usage was true in Rome and today for the same reason, i.e., all powers can only deal with those of equal standing. This is basic to the whole jurisdictional question.

gabel

Is a word equivalent to gavel, the instrument used on the Judge's bench when he raps out sentence and demands quiet or order.

Thus, Coke says that gabel or gavel, gablum, gabellum, gabelletum, galbelletum, and gavillchun, signify a rent, duty, or service yielded or done to the king or any other lord. See, Coke on Littleton, 142a, or Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 1329.

novatio

As 'novation,' in modern usage, this word did not appear in American law until after Lincoln's War, which follows, since the nation was under Martial Law and the resurrection of old Roman law was a cold fact.

It means, the substitution of a new debt or obligation for an existing one. See, Blacks 3rd, (1914), page 1261.

When a power conquers another the conqueror under Martial law must convert conquered people to fictional subjects they can address. Thus, the fiction creates a persona, to which is attached a debt (war debt) and this process of conversion is called novation.

novellae constitutiones

When conquering powers convert constitutions of a conquered nation, another fiction is created and called a novellae constitutiones. By now, the reasons for this are clear.

Thus, not only the people, but their laws and constitutions are novated, i.e., changed.

Thus, not only the conquered people, but their constitutions are novated, as well.

'Novation,' is taken from a root, meaning 'novel,' or 'new'.

In the U.S., the novation of the People and the Constitution for the united States of America, as well as all State constitutions, was accomplished by the Fourteenth Amendment, which, for the first time created United States Citizens, but the same Amendment was also used to systematically reinterpret the Constitutions so that it applied to the new and novel subjects, called persons, who were Citizens of the new Martial law power known as the United States, a Federal Corporation (Title 28, Section 3002, 15, A).

Today's Roman Imperial powers, i.e., the 'United States," has a problem in that Roman law recognized and protected the lex non scripta of conquered peoples. We have common law as our lex non scripta, which makes all the difference in the world, as we will see as we continue.

Further evidence of the religious nature of the war being waged by martial law powers against Christians is seen in the word 'martial,' which is based on the root word 'mars,' or more correctly Mars, the Roman god of war.

The question has been raised as to why Roman law was adopted when Lincoln and friends terminated the Constitution, and the answer is found in the fact that there was no other form of law available that provided an alternative to the Christian system - that was fully developed.

When Lincoln sought for someone to write a justification for his un-declared state of martial law, he chose a Latin scholar and Roman Law expert who was a professor of law at Columbia University. Francis Lieber wrote the 'Lieber Instructions' that became the Leiber Code that was Lincoln's guide as Commander-in-Chief during the War.

A word here on Lincoln's alleged Christian conversion. Lincoln's law partner, Herndon, wrote a "Life of Lincoln" published after the war in which he talks about Lincoln's Christian masquerade.

Publicly, Lincoln expressed 'Christian' ideas, but, in private he ridiculed Christians and Christianity and denied be was a Christian. Thus, like Jefferson before him, and Presidents who followed him, Lincoln went to great lengths to convince the public that he was a Christian. In fact, like Jefferson, he was an atheist and maintained his public stance purely for political reasons.

Herndon says clearly, that the stories of Lincoln's conversion after the death of his son, Tad, are false and were created by Christians, after Lincoln's death.

At any rate, after Lincoln's death, the implications of Roman law took some time for subsequent President's to assimilate into the new scheme of Executive Orders.

Almost immediately there was a flurry of curriculum re-writes for law schools and the onslaught grew more intense to rid the Federal government of any ties to common law.

The Federal Codes appeared about this time, modeled after the Codes of Justinian. In less than 30 years, all the states had adopted some form of Code Pleading and many, such as California, codified the version of the common law based on Justice Field's work of 1849. In 1872 it became the law in California and in eight years, a new California Constitution was adopted, without the People's vote.

In this era, the U S. Supreme Court turned to a social agenda under Chief Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes that foreshadowed the Warren and Berger Courts of later years.

After the turn of the century, the court sent messages to the nation and to legal practitioners in some of its decisions, that should have warned us all.

These messages largely confused the legal profession or were ignored, especially by Christians who had long since abandoned the realm of Law as Christ's domain.

Law professors took an activist stance in favor of international law and became leaders in pushing for a united world in the League of Nations and later the United Nations. The subtleties of jus gentium in Roman law became the backbone of international and municipal law and America was firmly in the grip of a foreign law.

At last Christ was banished from the American courts and legal system.

The one factor, however, they have failed to reckon with is the Spirit of God moving among Christians - again.

To Be or Not To Be -

A Resident?

Comments on Postal Service Policy

The Post Office Domestic Mail Manual at D930, 1.1, states as follows: "General Delivery is intended for use primarily at: c. Any post office to serve transients and customers not permanently located." At 1.2, it states. -postmasters may restrict the use of general delivery by customers." At 1.3, it states: "General delivery customers can be required to present suitable identification before mail is given to them." At 1.4, it states: "General delivery mail is held for no more than 30 days, unless a shorter period is requested by the sender. Subject to 1.2, general delivery mail may be held for longer periods if requested by the sender or addressee."

The point is: to inform those who've been told by local postmasters that they cannot receive general delivery for more than 30 days, that you are not being told the whole truth.

1.2 and 1.3 only restrict "customers," and make no mention of "transients" from 1.1.

Therefore, "transients" are not restricted. What is a"transient"??

In the Postal Laws and Regulations of 1932, sections 776-797, transients are "patrons" "not permanently located" and if they "insist on receiving general delivery, the request must be complied with." In the same sections, customers are "persons" and "residents" burdened with the same restrictions as the current regulations.

The current pink card, PS Form 1527 dated Nov 1987, is used for general delivery and should be filled out as follows.

Question; "I am applying for General Delivery Service for the following reasons":

Answer, "Not permanently located, transient lifestyle":

Question; "Address"; Answer: "None".

These regulations are one more sign that the de facto government only has control over "residents " and "persons".

NOTE: Do not use a Change of Address Card before or after submitting Form 1527.

The important distinctions between 'transients' and 'customers' when one applies for General Delivery are clearly seen.

Recently, during conversations with a local Postmaster of the U.S. Postal Service, the research above was confirmed in all its details.

If you are being confronted by a belligerent Postmaster who believes he can arbitrarily and capriciously deny you General Delivery, be advised that there is a way to deal with these people that has proven itself.

- First, when informed that General Delivery will be denied, or terminated, for any reason, make it a point to set up an appointment with the Postmaster, not a low-level Clerk.

- Second, do not speak to an attorney for the Postal Service. Speak only to the Postmaster.

- Third, prepare your General Delivery defense with the documents listed below. Know what they say and use a hi-lighter to mark the relevant points if you have to.

The documents you need are:

The King James Bible (to carry with you to the meeting. This is your Law.)
Domestic Mail Manuel at Sec. D930,
Public Law 91-375, Aug, 12, 1972, 84 Stat 719, Postal Reorganization Act.
"A Brief History of the United States Postal Service," from the Post Office Department, Information Service, July, 1956.
Postal Laws and Regulations of 1932, Sections 776 thru 797.
"The Story of Our Post Office," by Marshall Cushing, 1893, pages 185 and 186.
And the Post Office Form PS 1527, date November, 1987.

These documents were used in the aforementioned meeting with a Postmaster, out of which came the following:

First, the Postmaster asked questions that were mixed throughout the meeting regarding the status of General Delivery Patrons (we are never customers).
Question 1. "Are you engaged in a commercial activity at General Delivery?"
Answer: "No, my Law does not allow such things."
Q.2. "Do you have a residence?"
A.2. "No."
Q.3. "Do you have a Driver's License?"
A.3. "No."
Q.4. "What is your phone number so I can inform you of my decision?"
A.4. I don't have one. Put your confirmation in my General Delivery Box."

We then proceeded to explain Our position from the documents listed above and pointed out that the attempt of the Postal Service to end General Delivery was based upon the assumption that we were 'customers' and not 'transients,' which are not the same thing as explained above.

Then the Postmaster stated, "I'll let you know my decision."

We replied, "We are not here seeking any permission, but to assert a traditionally vested right, which is established by custom and usages before the Constitution existed. Thus, it isn't within your discretion to deny such rights."

Throughout the meeting we were cordial and pleasant, Not Confrontational!!!

Now, we have defined the difference between 'customers' and 'transients' at General Delivery. The following is further information on General Delivery:

The common law side of General Delivery is a traditionally vested right reserved to any Christian not dealing in a commercial venue, i.e., Christians supporting Christians. The evidence of this is in the fact that General Delivery has never been attached to any legislation by the defacto government. Therefore, it is part of the 'lex non scripta', which is the 'unwritten Law,' or 'common Law.'

Further evidence of this is in the fact that all Postal Laws since Lincoln's War have not changed one iota concerning General Delivery service to 'transients'. The noncommercial side remains as unrestricted today as it was when this country was founded.

On July 1st, 1863, free city delivery service was instituted. Until this date, all postal matter was picked up by the 'patron' at the post office. Before this date, 'customers' did not exist in Postal Laws. Those today who receive mail at a P.O. Box or at home are referred to as 'customers,' which is, of course, a purely commercial term, and means that anyone receiving free delivery is considered to be in a commercial venue.

On the other hand, 'patron' is defined in the law as, 'a protector or guardian'.

In 1893, Marshall Cushing wrote a book titled 'The Story of Our Post Office.' On page 186, he stated that "the general delivery clerk had to deal with the leading banker, the leading politician, the smart clergyman of the town and the family that will never allow their mail to be delivered by carrier." Thus, in Chicago, 30 years after free delivery was born, some people still knew the implications of free delivery.

In 1931, Clyde Kelly, a Member of the Post Office and Post Roads Committee in Congress, wrote a book titled, 'United States Postal Policy. On 'free delivery' he said [it] 'brings benefit to every citizen of the United States, whether he lives in city or country.' The key word here is 'benefit'.

"When it is said that a valuable consideration for a promise may consist of a benefit to the promissor, 'benefit' means that the promissor has, in return for his promise, acquired some legal right to which he would not otherwise have been entitled" (Woolum v. Sizemore, 102 S.W. 323,324).

In short, free delivery is a benefit; the use of which, places one into a commercial venue, and thus surrenders a legal right to the government, which it would not otherwise be entitled to, i.e., unalienable rights.

Remember, one aspect of 'unalienable' is, "not transferable;' and 'things which are not in commerce as, public roads, are, in their nature unalienable." (Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914). But, this does not mean that one cannot lose them. One can voluntarily opt for something else, i.e., a free benefit from the government - on a post route, thereby changing ones status from unalienable to alienable - in commerce.

Kelly added, referring to the "benefits of the postal highway" that "it is more essential for the protection of the nation than the Army and the Navy; it is the democratic instrument of a democracy." The neo-government desperately needed commercial residents receiving free delivery, to give them the 'lienable human resources' to bolster their assets.

Further evidence of the commercial aspect of free delivery, is seen in "The Postal Laws and Regulations of 1932," wherein 'letters', delivered free on 'post routes', are defined as "gas, electric, water, and tax bills or other statements of accounts, orders for merchandise, etc." (Which are all commercial terms)

In the same laws, concerning transient patrons, it states, 'the use of the general delivery should be discouraged if it is possible to receive mail otherwise, but if a patron insists on receiving his or her mail through the general delivery, the request must be complied with." In the current Postal Manual, transients are still totally unrestricted at General Delivery, as shown above.

How do 'residents' fit into all this, you ask? Again, the 1932 laws only restrict 'residents' and 'persons' at General Delivery, the restrictions being identical to the restrictions for 'customers' today.

In 'residere' (resident) means 'sitting or sinking firmly' and 'brevis' (transient) is transitory, for a short time'.

As Christians, we must always look to Scripture and the Word of God as the final authority. As Scripture repeated points out, that, as Christians, We are 'sojourners'.

'Sojourner' is defined in the Latin as 'hospes" meaning "the 'stranger' as guest, and the host who receives him; which is, an "antique custom" (Dictionary of Latin Synonymes, Little, Brown & Co., 1854).

In this series, 'transient' and 'sojourner' are synonymous. To this day, the customs and usages of Christians, as sojourners, have remained in tact at General Delivery.

The problem of postmasters trying to deny General Delivery for more than 30 days, has been an uphill battle for some. One must be prepared, when confronting this problem.

- First, cancel your P.O. Box and remove the mailbox from your house or driveway.

- Second, never agree to resolve problems with anyone but the Postmaster himself. Meetings with a supervisor or Postal legal counsel can be fatal because they can do and say anything. The Postmaster's words and acts, however, must comply with law.

- Third, always put forth a benevolent attitude, carrying a demeanor of full knowledge of Postal Matters and of General Delivery. This will take diligent study.

- Fourth, and most important of all, keep in mind at the meeting that you are not there to ask permission for General Delivery, but to retain a traditionally vested right that can not be denied to you, as a Christian.

To assist you in your study and to take with you as documentation to the meeting, the American Jural Society Press has available to Christians for one dollar in silver, a 15 page compilation of Postal research documents, including all of those mentioned in this article on General Delivery.

The 'mails' are a subject of vital interest for us all, because Lincoln's War began under the guise of keeping the 'post roads' open, but thereafter, free delivery and a host other 'benefits' became the means to convert every American who used them, from patrons to residents, not of their state, but of the Federal power, which opened the door to the Income Tax. This is the hidden meaning in Kelly's words that free delivery is, 'more essential than the Army and Navy.'

The Law and Home Schooling

John Quade

The rare and unique character of Christians as they respond to the problems of raising their families under God is no where better seen than in the idea of schooling Our children in the home.

In the last three decades, home schooling has moved out of the category of religious nut activities, to something that is almost common-place.

All this has taken place in the face of tremendous opposition from many forces in all levels of modern civil government.

The onslaught against home schooling families has, in the main, been vicious with cases filed against home-schoolers by departments of social services, school boards, child protective services, zoning boards, local police, and countless others.

Of course, the electronic and print media continually promote suspicion and hostility against home schooling families. This is a given.

And, while cases continue to be filed and prosecuted against Christian families, the intensity of efforts to suppress home schooling has abated somewhat in the last decade as home schoolers have organized into groups to fight the imperial powers.

This does not mean home schoolers have won the war. It means only that the opposition is re-thinking its suppression efforts against Christian families that it deems dangerous to the long-term goals of imperial powers.

The problems for governments trying to stop home-schooling are made more difficult because home schooling is a traditionally vested right of all Christian families.

A traditionally vested right is a right that has been exercised by one class of people or another, in this case by Christian families, over a long period of time.

In America, home schooling began the moment the Pilgrims and Puritans first set foot on the land and thus, it predates all constitutions and the acts of civil governments.

Once established, a traditionally vested right cannot be legislated out of existence without the cooperation of those who exercise the traditionally vested right.

But, if those who exercise the traditionally vested right refuse to cooperate in the demise of the right, the government must seek some alternative means to abolish it, and this normally means masses of legislation that seek to control the right and make it all but useless.

The exercise of the right under the burden of codes, rules, regulations, zoning laws, etc., often, over time, ceases to exist.

The control by regulation mode is the means currently used by governments to try and restrict home schooling to the point where it will die on its own. To date, it has not worked, but lack of success does not mean that governments will no longer try to find other ways to do the same thing.

The one major flaw in the defense of home schoolers has been the fact that defenses and cases launched by government bureaucrats have always been tried, on the governments turf, because the plaintiff (or government in this case) always sets the law of the forum in which the case is tried.

This means, when a plaintiff sets the law of the forum in which a case is tried, we can only play the game by the oppositions rules.

The problem is further aggravated by the fact that most home-schoolers - the instant they get any threatening letter from the government - run out and hire an attorney to defend them.

The only thing wrong with hiring the attorney is, he/she can onlydefend the home-schooler by the rules of the court that licenses him to practice - which are identical to the rules in the law of the forum set by the plaintiff's case.

Thus, a home-schooler is faced with a case in which he must fight his case with the other guys rules and also pay the other guys to defend him.

Sadly, home schoolers are unaware that the deck is stacked against them and their hired gun is not about to tell them the truth, especially if it means exposing that he also, works for the opposition.

And, after waging war for weeks and months in the courts with both hands and a foot tied behind his back, the typical home-schooler usually ends up by paying for many more years thereafter. Even if he wins his case there is often an enormous lawyer bill to pay.

But, suppose for a minute, that a home-school family could take steps to change the balance of power in the legal struggle to protect their home and children?

Suppose that most of the steps also take advantage of the fact that they are themselves - traditionally vested rights?

Suppose such steps remove a family from the jurisdiction of the vast majority of government entities and make it very difficult for anyone to bring a case against them?

Suppose such steps are such that any home school family can use them effectively to preserve the family and thereby preserve the state -- without an attorney?

Last, suppose such steps have a long history of success against the encroachments of governments and men?

Would it not be wise for all home school families to take advantage of these steps and in the process, gain may other advantages in other areas that have nothing to do with home schooling?

In this, the first of a series of articles in The News, we will offer the details of these steps, how they are used, and how any home school family can put them to work in their own behalf.

- First, we remind the Reader that these steps or procedures are available only to Christian families for reasons which will be explained as we go on.

- Second, the procedures are based upon the Scripture, common law, and Maxims of Law and have been used for nearly a thousand years by Christians, in both England and America.

- Third, the procedures are themselves a traditionally vested right, and the Scripture, as the foundation of all, predates the legal memory of man in 1189 A.D., and thus are unchallengeable in the courts.

- Fourth, by virtue of the standing of these procedures, current governments do not have standing to answer them, and thus, all the procedures normally go to default (if properly written and served) because they are issued from a superior jurisdiction and venue.

- Fifth, these procedures have been used by thousands of Christians in America over the last two years and in almost all cases they have proved successful.

- Sixth, no lawyer is involved at any point in the processes and all can be implemented by home schooling families who have done their homework.

- Seventh, these processes in Law do not require either the sanction or approval of any legislature as they are beyond the reach of any statute. The processes derive their authority from long and continued custom and usage among Good and Lawful Christians in England and America. Indeed, the procedures and Law embodied therein should also be incorporated into every home school curricula so the next generation will not live in fear of the imperial powers and will be better able to preserve both the family and the state.

.And, before we go on, there is a very specific reason why we have called the various governments in America 'imperial powers' which will be explained as we go on.

Part Two

The Present State of American Law?

We will now summarize the present state of law in America today, because it explains why the processes work so effectively.

First, as can be proved from hundreds of sources, all governments in America today are neither constitutional nor Lawful since March 27, 1861!!!

This shocks those who've lived all their lives believing the opposite, but as "The Senate Report on Emergency Powers," #93-549, Nov. 19, 1973, makes clear , "A majority of the people of the United States have lived all their lives under emergency rule ... And, in the United States, actions taken by the Government in time of great crisis have - from at least the Civil War - in important ways, shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency."

And, from the Supreme Court, "Congress has made little or no distinction between a 'state of national emergency' and a 'state of war.'

And, according to the Law of Nations, "the most immediate effect of a state of war is that it activates the Law of War itself."

Last, according to the Law of War, "martial law is obtained during a state of war and in truth and reality, is no law at all."

Second, a reader can verify for himself just by visiting any courtroom in America, where he will see that the U.S. flag flown therein has gold fringe around three sides, 2 inches long.

Such a flag is flown only when the land is under martial law.

Evidence that such flags are not decorative is found in Exec. Order #10834, August 21, 1959; 24 Fed. Reg. @ pg. 6865; Title 4, United States Codes, Chap. 1, Secs. 1,2, & 3; U.S. Atty. General Opinions (34 Ops. Atty. Gen. 483 @ 485); U.S. Army Reg., AR 840-10, October 1, 1979; Adjutant Genl. Papers (1925), March 28, 1924.

The above cites, from official sources, make it clear that when a gold fringed flag is flown indoors, it flies only in military courts.

Third, Congress has made no genuine law since March 27, 1861, because on that day, seven Southern states walked out of Congress and left that body without a quorum to do business.

Further, Congress did not adjourn according to law, but instead, adjourned sine die, i.e., 'without day.'

Congress adjourned without setting a date, time, and place set certain to reconvene and thus, according to parliamentary law, they ceased to exist as a lawful body and from that day have had no power to make law.

To prove this to yourself, go to your local public library where they have a set of the U.S. Titles and Codes and look at the Index of Titles on the fly-leaf of volume one. There you will find a note that Congress exists by resolution, not positive law.

The office of the President and the Courts have no such notes, only the Congress.

Congress, in fact, sits as trustees in bankruptcy of and for the United States government, and for an admission of this, see "The Congressional Record," and the remarks of Congressman Trafficant on page H1303, March 17, 1993.

Fourth, two years after the Civil War, President Andrew Johnson admits in his veto message of the Reconstruction Bills, that the nation is still under martial law and gave as one of his reasons for vetoing the Reconstruction Bills, that the Congress was setting up military tribunals in all the states, which was contrary to all known law at that time. See, "The Congressional Record," page 15641-15646, June 13, 1967.

Fifth, Harold Berman, in his work, "Law and Revolution," states categorically, that the government that existed in Washington, D.C., after the Civil War had changed its agenda dramatically with the intent of doing away with the Christian nature of the American system so that the government could embark on a new philosophy of government--"license" under man, masquerading as Christian Liberty under God.

Sixth, further evidence of the dramatic shift spoken of above is seen in Title 28, Section 3002, where the current United States government is not defined as a constitutional republic, but as a 'Federal corporation'!!! It is only the shell derived from Roman Imperial Law; but, void or empty of the substance of God's Law.

Evidence of the real nature of current American law, with 170 footnotes, is in 'The Book of the Hundreds,' Part One, published by The Christian Jural Society Press.

This background is vital for developing a remedy at law for home schoolers.

Christ and Liberty

by John William

"Any law contrary to the Law of God is no law at all. "

Sir William Blackstone

This clarity of thinking in the Christian mind of Blackstone stands in its own right. Yet, its true significance is best seen in contrast to the words of United States Supreme Court justices:

"We are all agreed that the First and Fourteenth Amendments have a secular reach far more penetrating in the conduct of Government than to merely forbid an 'established church'... We renew our conviction that 'we have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religion."{1}
Yet, "The first amendment, however, does not say that in every respect there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other."{2}
Another says: "Wilkins, district Judge, in the United States court, has decided that the testimony of an atheist is not admissible!"{3}

And elsewhere, the high court has said consistently that this is a Christian country whose laws presuppose and are built upon Christianity. {4}

Typical is: "Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions we emphatically Christian." {5}
"Secularism is un-constitutional, preferring those who do not believe over those who do believe. It is the duty of government to deter no-belief religions.., Facilities of government cannot offend religious principles."{6}

The only way to reconcile these statements is to take into account the date when they were made, and see the mind of the court which was, in the main, totally contradictory after Lincoln's War, because the Court's mind was largely determined by the whim of Commanders-in-Chief who appointed them.

When Lincoln refused to support the Court's decision in the Merryman case {7} and compel a military officer to comply with a writ of habeas corpus, he sent a message to the Court that has never been forgotten, i.e., the Commander-in-Chief has the last word.

Let us not forget that both Lincoln and Roosevelt 'packed' the Court with men whose intellectual make-up was such as to guarantee that their rulings would align with the will of the Commander-in-Chief.

Elsewhere, where a decision of the Court could not substantially alter existing public policy - after Lincoln's War - decisions could go either way. But, if a decision meant a roadblock of secularism and Roman Imperial law in official policy, the outcome of the Court's deliberations were a foregone conclusion.

At other times, the Court's decisions were anti-Christian, but not in a way that readily aroused Christian leadership. An ignorant clergy made the task much easier.

The classic example of this is seen when the Court set aside the Rules of Pleading for Courts at-law, (1933-34) which was a specific form of pleading based on Christianity.

Congress gave power to the Court to change the Rules to eliminate 'legal' means whereby Christians could attack the socialization of America and the massive centralization of federal power that took place under F. D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson.

When the historical control of the Court's decisions are taken into account, the change in the Court after Lincoln's War, is obvious.

The Court's thinking became clearly secular as it sought to eliminate the Christian idea of law that had for so long kept civil power and the courts in check.

Thus, Berman says,

"With the transfer of the principal law-enforcing functions to the sole jurisdictions of the national state [government], the foundation was laid for the separation of jurisprudence from theology and ultimately for the complete secularization of legal thought. This did not occur at once, since the predominant system of beliefs throughout the West remained Christian. It is only in the twentieth century that the Christian foundations of Western law have been almost totally rejected."
"This twentieth-century development is a historical consequence of the Western belief of which St. Anselm was the first exponent, that theology itself may be studied independently of revelation. Anselm had no intention of exalting reason at the expense of faith. Yet once reason was [* 198] separated from faith for analytical purposes, the two began to be separated for other purposes as well. It was eventually taken for granted that reason is capable of functioning by itself and ultimately this came to mean functioning without any fundamental religious beliefs whatever." [The fundamental beliefs are embodied, evidenced, and secured in the Organic Law by the People themselves.]
"By the same token, it was eventually [has been] taken for granted that law, as a product of reason, is capable of functioning as an instrument of secular power, disconnected from ultimate values and purposes; and not only religious faith but all passionate convictions came to be considered the private affair of each individual. Thus, not only legal thought but also the very structure of Western legal institutions have been removed from their spiritual foundations, and those foundations, in turn, are left devoid of the structure that once stood upon them." {8}

The theology of the People in the states is manifested in their customs, usages, institutions and lex loci ... through Common Law.

Montesquieu wrote:

"A prince who undertakes to destroy or to change the dominant religion in his state is greatly exposed. If his government is despotic, he runs a greater risk of seeing a revolution than he would by any tyranny whatever, which is never a new thing in these sorts of states. The revolution results from the fact that a state does not change religion, mores, and manners in an instant or as soon as the prince publishes the ordinance establishing a new religion."
"In addition, the former religion is linked with the constitution of the state, and the new one is not attached to it; the first is in accord with the [political] climate [of the People] and the new one of often resists it. Furthermore, the citizens find their laws distasteful; they scorn the government already established, suspicions of both religions are substituted for a firm belief in one; in a word, one gives the state, at least for some time, bad citizens and bad believers. {9}

Standards of Christian law held to by the Court before Lincoln, were lost after the War. Decisions were confusing and contradictory, for the Court had no standard of Law by which its thinking was guided or controlled.

In short, the Court was dominated by three factors- the will of the Commander-in-Chief, rationalism/relativism, and social activism.

It didn't really matter what the Court said anyway, since its decisions were held, in the Roosevelt era, to have no binding effect on federal policy or subsequent Court rulings. Binding precedent on all courts disappeared with common law in the Erie Railroad case. {10}

The conclusion of the matter is: When the highest Court in the land, with supposedly the best brains in law, rejected Christianity, the outcome was a foregone conclusion - chaos.

We now turn to a philosophical look at our situation.

If one rejects the absolutes of God and Christ, one is left with but one alternative; relativism, an example of which has already been given above when dealing with the Supreme Court.

In relativism, it's illegal on Monday to murder. On Tuesday, there are extenuating circumstances. On Wednesday, the murderer is held not to be responsible - really - because of his poor upbringing, and a death penalty is denied. On Thursday, the victim is 'really the one who committed the crime, and on Friday, its legal to murder. It is now- Thursday morning.

There are those who 'claim' to be religiously neutral after adopting atheism or agnosticism, and make great attempts to project the idea that their view is intellectually defensible; and not only that - objective, as well, at least with respect to religion (meaning Christianity).

The truth is, all systems of thought boil down to two-and two only. There are those who believe in the autonomy of man and man's reason (rationalism/relativism) and those who believe in the sovereign God of Scripture.

All other systems of thought, carefully analyzed, fall into the first or second camp above, and it matters not whether we look at religious or the so-called non-religious mind set, because all thought is religious - at bottom.

Even the Supreme Court has recognized that non-belief systems are still religious. {11}

One can profess to believe in nothing, but the very act of professing, betrays a belief in absolutes. For if absolutes did not exist and one did not believe in them, why speak at all, unless one believed that others understand, by some absolute standard of meaning that's outside of both.

An atheist or agnostic must presuppose God, to deny Him. Otherwise what's the point?

It's often humorous, when one says that all things are relative, which is nothing but the statement of an absolute maxim.

At bottom, if one denies absolutes as in atheism, or pretends there is insufficient evidence for God's existence as in agnosticism, one can say nothing about the ultimate questions of knowledge and knowing, and one is reduced to wallowing in the hypocrisy of 'humanity,' and cliches like; 'the triumph of the human spirit.'

The Apostle Paul answers them all:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness, Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. Because that when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." {12}

Religious neutrals are forced by their starting point, or ultimate presupposition, to adopt a stance equivalent to making themselves to be God. This was the hall-mark of French Enlightenment thinkers, i.e., Voltaire, Robespierre, Rousseau, Mirabeau, and many others.

Look what they produced; riot and bloodshed, revolution and carnage, and we must not forget their attack on the Christian church in France upon which so many people relied for sustenance of all kinds.

The reason for the attack was, all nonchristian thought manifests itself in the massive centralization of power in the hands of the omnipotent State. The church was the only power who challenged the excesses and bloodbath of the French Revolutionists.

Thus, it became the object of a great purge to make certain the French people had no allegiance to anything but the State. This fact is forgotten by those who write the 'great' novels of French history on which Hollywood bases so much of its film propaganda.

The will to centralize power in the State is normal in all non-Christian minds and once the non-believers are in power, they seek to mount programs guided by relativistic reason.

Since their ideas are inherently corrupt and they have already rejected the absolutes of God by which to know their own sins, their systems begin to fail almost immediately.

Once granted the assumption of absolute reason, the absolute State is right behind. When things began to fall apart, they seek more power, to 'fix things,' and 'make certain it never happens again!!!' How often do we hear this on the nightly news?

They are never satisfied with any amount of power, until they have it all. It doesn't matter if they preach 'limited' government and local self-government. Being relativists, they cannot define what limited power means!!!

They cannot even tell when to stop gouging the people for more taxes, because they cannot define the point at which higher taxes reach diminishing returns. The reason is, they keep changing the meaning of the law and where the point of diminishing returns may occur.

Relativism is truly Hell on Earth.

Thus, non-christians in law and politics may deny that God, Christ or Scripture have any relevance in civil government. But, the fact is, in the will to create the all powerful, all-knowing, everywhere present State, they are doing nothing more than attempting to imitate the very God they deny, and this, in spite of themselves.

Libertarians pride themselves on what they consider sophisticated argument on law and politics - without mentioning religion, - but they, along with the so-called 'Conservatives' refuse to examine their own position because probing may prove to be embarrassing.

We must not forget that Christ said: "All they that hate Me, love death." He made no mention of a neutral middle in some bell-shaped curve. He also said, "He that is not with Me, is against Me."

'Nuff said.

Christians are often accused as a matter of course, of being all sorts of things when they begin to invade the territories of what has been a non-christian dominated area of life, such as law and politics.

One common charge is that Christians are intolerant of other's views. Of course, this is true, but, Christians have no choice in the matter. Non-christians make this charge because they project onto the Christian, the standards of non-believers. They do not know what its like for the Holy Spirit to lead a man down a road in spite of the man's 'better idea.'

Non-christians tolerate anything, and expect Christians to do the same, while ignoring their own hypocrisy. The one idea all non-christians share is, intolerance of Christians.

Christians have no choice in matters of tolerance. They are under God's Law and the Kingship of the Lord Jesus Christ. Non-christians will always interpret Christians wrong and always construe or imply things in the mind of Christians, that are in fact, the exclusive property and implications of non-christian minds.

Christians did not create the present Roman style, Imperial military government that's controlled the united States since Lincoln's War.

They did not create Aristotle's socialism or Plato's Communism, or that of Marx, Engels and Lenin. Neither Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, or Roosevelt were Christians. Christians created none of the modern 'One World wanta-be's.

In short, the modern world is purely the product of non-christian thinking, not Christian.

Of course, there is always a connection assumed between Christianity and the Spanish Inquisition, and this is pointed to as an example of what happens if Christians come to power.

In fact, the Inquisition was conducted by kings that hid behind Christianity and the 'inquiries' that took place were to discover the sources of wealth and property held by victims.

The Inquisition was, after all, a ruse for kings to acquire power and property at the expense of Christian and Jewish families without having to having to deal with due process.

Does this not sound like America, today. Indeed, things are more sophisticated now, but the Inquisition still goes on - in IRS tax forms.

Then, there is the baggage that comes with the Puritans. In America, it is considerable.

Since Lincoln's War against the states, we've been deluged with massive revisionist history that has sought to dirty Puritan history.

People believe Puritans only dressed in black and white, and wore high-collar shirts, but, if one was to actually look at early paintings of American or English Puritans, one would find exactly the opposite.

Surprise! The modern idea of Puritans dress came from a series of postage stamps printed by the U. S. government, after Lincoln's War.

Puritans are witch burners in every Hollywood movie made, as if this were the legacy of the Puritans in American history.

The truth is, no Puritan in America ever burned a witch. They hung'em, eighteen in all.

The truth is, if one bothers to read the witch trial transcripts, one finds the accused were convicted, primarily, of dealings in drugs as part of their rituals.

Careful reading of the Greek New Testament reveals that the word for 'witch' is, in the Greek, pharmacais, i.e, a purveyor of drugs.

The penalty then (and should be now) for dealing in such drugs was death. If men really want to do something about the modern drug problem they could learn a few things from the Puritans.

Puritans are supposed to be very straightlaced about sex. To find the truth, read the Puritan poet John Milton, and then tell us they were straight-laced. Puritans enjoyed sex as much as any. They just believed, as Scripture says, that it should be carried on only between a lawfully wed man and woman.

In fact, Puritans led almost every area of life in England and America. In theology, education, science, art (Rembrandt was a Puritan), law, economics, and in civil government, primarily in the Judiciary they held the first rank.

At their peak, as 4% of the population, they controlled 40% of England's wealth, most of which funded the early colonizing of America. Even the 'City on a Hill' was an idea borne in Puritan theology.

Sam Adams, whose great mind sparked resistance to growing English tyranny was called 'The Father of the Revolution' (a term which he repudiated) and was also known as, 'the last of the great Puritan thinkers.'

Last, over 85% of all universities and colleges founded in early America, beginning with Harvard (1649), were founded and built by Puritans.

The point is, why all the propaganda against Puritans? The answer is found in their adherence to God's Law as binding the powers of the civil authority. Thus, the English Puritans were largely responsible for blocking centralization of power in the hands of the kings and queens and when they came to America they continued to press the same issues.

The real 'crime' of the Puritans was: they held to the family as the cornerstone of all civilization; limited and tightly controlled local civil government; and above all, in the Law of God, which told all men when governments sinned.

For these reasons, and no others that can be verified by real facts of history, Puritans are condemned; because they are an example of what Christians can do when one is serious about Christ and God's Law.

We come now to a question on whether or not there is a form of civil government available to us, not specifically Christian in nature, that provides what non-christians want in terms of liberty, security of property ownership, etc.

For the answer to this question, we recall that every form of government that has existed on the face of the planet for the last four thousand years, has been non-christian in character and embodied some form of law not bound to the Scripture - except three, which are, of course, ancient Israel, England, and early America, all of which were clearly based upon and controlled by God's Law at one point or another.

It was this factor that made them great powers and forces for the protection of life, liberty, and property. Revisionists will, of course, disagree with this view. And, casting about for someone to point to as their example of a great non-christian leader they focus on Jefferson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt. They will exalt anyone - anyone - who has made a contribution to American history - who was not Christian.

So successful has the propaganda been on Jefferson and Lincoln, that even those in law reform movements quote Jefferson, without understanding what he meant by them.

The facts are, Jefferson was selected as the editor for a draft of the Declaration that was assembled by a committee of five, for one reason - his standing with the government of France.

We must not forget that Jefferson was very well liked in the courts of French kings and queens, and later, he was fully accepted by the French Revolutionists.

Since all the colonies had already declared their independence from England, in one form or another, the real point of the Declaration was to send a message to France, to secure their assistance in the War against England.

The Declaration of Independence was thus, primarily an instrument of propaganda aimed at France with Jefferson's name on it, which guaranteed a hearing in the French court.

We must remember also, there were many differences between Jefferson's draft of the Declaration and the edition finally published, because, Jefferson's version read more like a French Enlightenment work, than an American work.

Further, any implication of Jeffersonian influence an the Constitution is a fiction, because he was out of the country, as ambassador to France during the writing of the Constitution.

We come now, to Jefferson's words and their meaning in one of his most famous quotes:

"The tree of liberty must be periodically watered by the blood of patriots."

To understand this, me must remember that Jefferson was a French Enlightenment thinker because this tells us what he really means by the words.

In French Enlightenment thinking the idea of revolution was that periodically (cyclically) society must rebel against tyranny in a national blood-letting by which it purges itself of its national sins.

Such an idea was utterly foreign to the Founding Fathers and is certainly contrary to any Christian view of history and politics, and this explains why, when Jefferson returned his draft of the Declaration, the committee made so many changes in it.

As President we must also remember, like Clinton's election, there was no consensus of support for Jefferson. The election was thrown into the House of Representatives where it took 34 ballots before Jefferson took the Presidency.

Jefferson made deals with everyone he could, to get elected, then broke most of them, before he finished his first term in office. In this sense, Jefferson is the archetype for the modern Presidents that talk out of both sides of their mouth. Indeed, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt; and Clinton, are all clones of each other, in this respect.

With this, we close our discussion of non-christian influence on the early American ideas of civil government.

There remains a question of whether or not there has occurred anywhere in history, an example of non-christian civil governments, that fostered real liberty without the tyranny of a military despotism, other than in ancient Israel, early England, and America.

The fact is, the empires that existed - other than Israel, before the Romans, all sought to dominate and subject the peoples of other lands, by one military form of government, or another.

Assyria, Persia, Egypt, and Greece are typical of conquerors who, like leeches, sought to conquer as much territory as possible to sustain the homeland, because their own system just couldn't sustain itself on its own merits.

When Israel was strong, before the Babylonian conquest, her geographic location acted as a kind of buffer, between Egypt and the others.

After the Babylonian conquest, the Hebrews were in captivity for 70 years and then were returned to Israel and the Holy Land, by Cyrus.

Later, under the influence of prophecy, Israel welcomed Alexander as the agent of God and a compromise was readied by which Israel retained much of her independence.

Greek influence, however, weakened Israel's faith and set her up for Roman conquest. The positive note in the Greek era was the spread of the Greek language that so aided the spread of the Gospel, written in Greek, in Later years.

With the coming of the Roman Imperialism, the world saw the last of the great world powers seen in Biblical prophecy.

The image of the man in Daniel's vision is struck on the feet of mixed clay and iron by the stone cut out without hands. This is the cornerstone of the Christian church, Jesus Christ.

No military power ever successfully conquered Rome and held it. This task was done by the Gospel of Jesus Christ. From that time to this, no other nation on Earth has achieved the completeness and extent of Rome's dominance of the world.

The problem is, too many in the law reform movements have utterly failed to realize this and cower in fear in the face of all the publicity that circulates in their own camp. Indeed, some even direct their entire effort toward informing others on the N.W.O. and continue to propagate myths that were long ago still-bourne, dead on the vine.

One wonders, at times, just whose side are these people on, anyway???

At any rate, the answer to our question above is: There is no example, anywhere, of any non-christian nation spawning any real idea of liberty that was workable. All such nations have relied on the use of military power and conquest to sustain themselves, and all, end in tyranny.

The reason is, all non-christian systems of power are inherently self-contradictory, self-refuting, and self-destructive. All that's required to see this, is enough rope to hang themselves.

This is because all such systems presuppose that power flows from the top -- down, not from the bottom -- up. But, to realize this goal, they must, inevitably become, gods. The state must be, as Ernst Hegel said, god walking on earth.

The idea must lead to centralization of power in the hands of the State (or a few) that, in time, becomes less and less efficient and more and more corrupt, consuming more and more, in men and property -- just to survive.

There is never any thought of such governments changing horses in the middle of the stream and moving, genuinely, towards reform.

In America, at least, all governments must proceed from the bottom to the top, or more correctly, from the bottom - down.

History has shown time and again, that only Christian based civil governments ever succeed, and that all non-christian systems always fail.

Philosophy tells us that all thought based on a non-christian view of life must fail and, if implemented in a government, must result in tyranny. They may preach liberty and scream for tolerance, but once they actually possess the power, they impose a new form of intolerance for Christianity and Christians.

In the end, when we say we are pro-civil government at The News, we clearly mean by that, a Christian civil government based specifically on God's Law, not the law of man.

We do not say that American Jural Societies are the only answer to achieving the goal of reconstructing civil government on Christianity, but, until something else comes along, even closer to Scripture, they are the means we have to restore lawful civil authority at the local level.

Our goal is nothing short of complete and total reform of Law and civil government along Christian lines of thought.

We make no place for the rulership of non-christians in our societies because we do not want to recreate the image with feet of iron and clay mixed.

On this basis we are bound to stand by virtue of the most important fact of our existence: that of Jesus Christ, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, whose Law is our Law, and who has given us the heart of flesh to implement that Law according to the Christian law of Liberty and Love.

Endnotes

{1} 333 U.S., at 213, 232.

{2} Zorach vs. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 307, 313.

{3} Case No. 446, Anonymous, I Has. U.S. Reg. (1839) 87. No longer published.

{4} U.S. vs. Maclntosh, 283 U.S. 605, 625 (193 1);

{5} Church of Holy Trinity, vs. U.S., 143 U.S. 457-458, 465-471.

{6} School District of Abington Township, vs. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 212, 225 (1963).

{7} Ex parte Merryman, Case No. 9,487, 17 Fed. Cases, 144.

{8} Berman, "Law and Revolution" (Harvard U. Pr., 1983), pp. 197-198. [Emphasis added.]

{9} Montesquieu, Spirit of Laws, Pt. 5, Bk. 24, chap. 11. [Emphasis and insertions added]

{10} Erie Railroad v. Thompkins, 304 U.S. 64.

{11} Torcaso vs. Watkins,

{12} Romans 1: 18-22, (KJV).

Commerce vs. Unalienable Rights

by John Joseph

"Commerce" is a supposedly harmless term we hear every day. But what is it and what does it mean to be "engaged in commerce?" Just what are some of the consequences of "engaging in commerce?" Dictionaries have part of the answer, court decisions have part of the answer, and Scripture has the definitive answer. Let us look at each of these and play a few scenarios that exist today. These scenarios, by the way, all look normal and harmless. But as we shall see, are deadly in terms of political, social, and individual impact.

"Commerce. Trade on a large scale, or the exchange of commodities. (From the Latin cum mercis.)" Frank Henius, "A Dictionary of Foreign Trade!" (1946), p. 116. [For interested Christians, Henius' book is available from Randy Lee]

This is a simple definition and covers a lot of territory in terms of what can be considered "commerce." Let us then consult the Latin definitions of 'commerce' to find out more about this mystery. In the Latin, "Commerce is:

" Commerce. Mercatura (especially of the merchant: mercatio, (Commercial transaction, the buying and selling, Gell, 3, 3): negotium, the plural negotia (the business which any body carries on, especially as corn-merchant and money-lender): commercium (commerce, commercial intercourse), Sal. Jug., 18, 6, Plin., 3, 1, 3; with any thing, alicujus rei Plin., 12, 14, 30; then, also = the liberty of commerce): wholesale business, mercatura magna et copiosa: in retail, mercatura tenuis [Vid. TRADE]. The Roman merchants carry on a commerce with Gaul, mercatores Romari ad Gallos commeant (i.e, they visit Gaul with their merchandise, Caes., B. G., 1, 1). Social intercourse, conversatio, (Vell., Quint.): usus: consuetudo, (of his service, &c.): convictus (in so far as one lives with anybody). Vid. INTERCOURSE." Ridd1e, English-Latin Lexicon (1849) p. 114.

Contrary to popular belief, the Latin language is not dead. It is carried forward in English today. 'Commerce' concerns itself with the trade, buying, negotiating, profiting, benefitting, selling or exchange of commodities on a large scale between two separate and distinct venues, intercourse. The large scale aspect of commerce necessarily involves the public's (not necessarily Christendom's) participation in some way, either willingly or unwillingly. Profiting or benefitting from the expense of the public, or their government is what must be, and is, licensed, regulated, and taxed:

"Term 'commerce' as employed in US. Const. Art I Sec. 8, is not limited to exchange of commodities only, but includes, as well, 'intercourse' with foreign nations, and between states [venues]; and term intercourse includes transportation of passengers." People v. Raymond (1868, 34 C. 492. [Insertion added].

The last phrase in Henius' work, "the exchange of commodities" concerns us the most, because 'commodities' is another term that must be defined so we can come to a true and correct definition of what truly is and is not 'commerce.' And the last phrase in the Raymond decision gives a clue to removing and staying out of commerce: that being conducting your affairs among those of like mind in the state of Christendom, thereby not crossing venues.

Commodities are what we hear are being traded on many of the large exchanges in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Hong Kong, Frankfort and others. But no where on news reports are you told what a 'commodity' is. Consulting Henius' work:

"COMMODITY. Something which affords convenience or profit, which can be exchanged for some other value. The commodity must be in such tangible form, whether goods and services, that it can be traded for something tangible (goods and services). Thus, a commodity becomes something that can be made the subject of trade, of acquisition as well as of an exchange offering; something possessing exchange value, that can be traded for something else." Frank Henius, "A Dictionary of Foreign Trade"(1944) p. 120.

This is a broad definition of 'commodity.' According to this definition, any thing which can be made the subject of a trade, buy and sell, or exchange, is a commodity. Under this heading fall the following:

"The word 'goods' has been interpreted generally as meaning tangible movable things, called chattels. In the law of bailments, 'goods' includes money when treated as a commodity and not as a medium of exchange, and also documents and instruments whether representing goods (e.g., bills of lading and warehouse receipts representing goods) or representing intangibles (e.g., certificates of stock representing shares in a corporation, and negotiable and non-negotiable instruments representing rights of action, such as checks, promissory notes, insurance policies, and savings bank books). " Frascona, Business Law (I 954) pp. 291-292.

Money (magnitude without reference to substance; see Riddle, under "money') is a 'commodity' when it is not considered "coin of the realm' but is merely bought, sold, traded, or exchanged for commercial paper or military script, i.e., Federal Reserve Notes, and the like. This is the state of affairs when one goes to a coin dealer to buy his 'lawful money' and he is charged a tax for the purchase. This is intercourse between a Good and Lawful Christian Man and the licensed merchant, who has no right to possession. When, however, the 'lawful money' of Christendom returns to Christendom, it is no longer a commodity, but returns to its original Lawful character, and to the Person Who has the Right to Possession. Notes, bills, drafts, cheques and all kinds of negotiable instruments are "commodities." Licenses are "commodities." Virtually any thing that gives an advantage of comfort, ease, profit, or benefit, or which can be negotiated is a "commodity."

"COMMODITY. What possesses the quality of ease, comfort: comoditas: commodum: opportunitas (convenience). Profit, commodum: emolumentum, (advantage, opposed to incommodum, detrimentum): lucrum: fructus (gain: opposed to damnum): questus (gain, which one seeks, profit): utilitas, (general term for the use or serviceableness of any thing). Ware, or merchandise, merx Commodities, merces." Riddle, English Latin Lexicon (1849) p. 115.
"BENEFIT. Beneficium. To confer a benefit on any one, beneficium alicui dare, tribere, in aliquem conferre or deferre; beneficio aliquem afficere: benefacere alicui. Your benefits to me, tua in me officia; tua erga me merita. As a benefit, pro beneficio, in beneficii loco. Use, advantage, utilitas, usus; commodum, emolumentum." Riddle, English-Latin Lexicon (1849), p. 62.

Notice the last phrase in Riddle's definition of 'benefit.' The same words describe benefit, to be a 'commodity' or profit. Benefits in the form of profit, when derived from pubic detriment are commodities. Any benefit you receive from the federal government is a commodity and is therefore subject to regulation under the interstate commerce clause. Benefits received from the State governments are subject to regulation in intrastate commerce. Remember, the benefits are crossing the boundaries mapped out by the constitutions; thus, establishing a commodity moving from one venue to another:

"But where the effect of intrastate transaction upon interstate commerce is merely indirect, such transactions remain within the domain of [that] state['s] power. If the commerce clause were construed to reach all enterprises and transactions which could be said to have an indirect effect upon interstate commerce, the federal authority would embrace practically all the activities of the people and the authority of the State over its domestic concerns would exist only by the sufferance of the federal government.' Schechter Poultry Corp. v. US. (1935), 295 US. 495, 55 S.Ct. 837, 79 L.Ed. 1570.

Now, what benefits could you be receiving? Are you receiving the benefit of free delivery of your mail at your house? Please see Randy Les's excellent article on Post Office's "General Delivery." Are you receiving the benefit of 'federal corporate employment'? The receipt of a benefit from the federal government changes your whole relation to the government. Why? Because it puts you on the government defined 'fief' or 'feud':

"Fief. The right bestowed on any body, beneficium: *feudam (technical term)." Riddle, English-Latin Lexicon (1849) p. 297.

Further, this sets up what is known as a quasi-contractual relationship, enforced in an action of assumpsit:

"Statutory contract is a contract which the statute says shall be implied from certain facts [receipt of benefit], and is governed by the ordinary rules relating to contracts." Foley v. Leisy Brewing Co., 89 N.W. 230,231,116 Iowa 176. [Emphasis added.]
"A quasi contractual action presupposes acceptance and retention of a benefit by one party with full appreciation of the facts, under circumstances making it inequitable for him to retain the benefit without payment of its reasonable value." Major-Blakeney Co. v. Jenkins (1953), 121 C.A.2d 325, 263 P.2d 655, hear den.; Townsend Pierson, Inc. v. Holly-Coleman Co. (1960), 178 C.A. 2d 373, 2 Cal. Rptr. 812.
"A debt resulting from a normal agreement or contract has always been the result of a promise to pay, and invoked a remedy in the form of assumpsit. However, an assumpsit cannot be applied to actions of debts where there is no agreement unless the court does so by means of a fiction, because in order to support assumpsit it is necessary to allege a promise, and without agreement there is no promise. Historically, the courts have adopted the fiction of a promise, and it was declared that a promise was implied in law." Keener, "Quasi-Contracts", pp. 4-5.
"For the convenience of the remedy, they have been made to figure as though they sprang from contract, and have appropriated the form of agreement" Anson, Contracts (8th Ed.), p. 362.

But quasi-contracts are insidious and contra bonos mores, when they violate the customs and usages of Good and Lawful Christian People:

"I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." Exodus 20:2-3.
"... not only unscientific, and therefore theoretically wrong, but is also destructive of clear thinking, and therefore vicious in practice. It needs no argument to establish the proposition that it is not scientific to treat as one and the same thing an obligation that exists in every case because of the assent of the defendant, and an obligation that not only does not depend in any case upon his assent, but in many cases exists without his assent" Keener, "Quasi-Contracts", p. 3.

That beneficium, benefit, is in a commercial venue separate and distinct from Christendom which is now under the jurisdiction of the federal military power ever since the states lost in the Lincoln v. All States War, during the hostilities from 1861-1865. When you receive any benefit, gratuity, or bounty, from government, a separate and distinct venue, you are engaged in the commercial activity of making profit or gain at the detriment of the government agency, and are marked a 'resident' in this relationship. This is because 'residents' exercise no traditionally vested rights retained by Good and Lawful Christian Men; and, are therefore strange to the Private Christian Man who sojourns on the land.

It is not Lawfully mandatory that any Good and Lawful Christian Man maintain any such relationship, when that relationship attempts to deprive, cloud or destroy the Christian Man's relationship with his Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ:

"Again it may be asked, what must be done when a human law does not agree with the Divine Law? Must such law be obeyed? Men have no right to make a law that is contrary to the Law of God, and we are not bound to obey it." Young's Civil Government, published in 1877 by A. S. Barnes & Co.

The way out is to destroy the existence of benefit, profit, ease, or comfort using the Law:

"When performance of contract depends on continued existence of given person or thing [benefit], condition is implied that impossibility arising from perishing of person or thing [benefit] excuses performance." Field (A. B.) & Co. v. Haven (1918), 36 C.A. 669, 173 P. 108.
"Where performance depends on existence of a given thing [consideration, benefit] assumed as the basis of the agreement, performance is excused to extent that the thing [benefit] ceases to exist or turns out to be non-existent." Dairy Food Store, Inc. v. Alpert (1931), 116 C.A. 670, 3 P.2d 61; Coulter v. Sausalito Bay Water Co. (1932), 122 C.A. 480, 10 P.2d 780.

This is the purpose of removing, destroying, returning, or otherwise Lawfully destroying the existence of benefit pleaded in statutory actions against you:

"No man can be charged in equity as a partner [promissor, resident], and sued at law as a debtor [Christian Man] of the firm, for his adversary cannot place him in these incompatible legal attitudes." Rheem v. Snodgrass, et al. (1858) 2 Grant's Cases 379.

In the case of the free mail delivery, removal of the post office box or sealing of the mail slot in your door is removal and destruction of the existence of benefit. Returning of all forms of consideration, benefit, or commodum to the grantor or giver of such, is the answer.

This raises the issue of 'unalienable rights.' No one has an unalienable right to receive any government 'benefits' to the detriment of the public 'commerce.' This is easily seen:

"UNALIENABLE. Incapable of being transferred. Things which are not in commerce [traditionally vested rights], as, public roads, are in their nature unalienable. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 3350.
"UNALIENABLE. The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold. 2. Things which are not in commerce [traditionally vested rights], as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1 859), Vol. II, p. 610.

You don't have unalienable rights in commerce, because everything is negotiable. "Every man has his price" is the mantra. This is simply because neither you, nor your neighbor, have a right vested by God to lie, cheat or steal from each other.

"Neither shalt thou steal."
"Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbor."
"Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbors house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbors." Deut. 5: 19-21.

Looking at the above then, traditional vested rights which are retained by Good and Lawful Christian Men should never be compromised by entering into commerce, i.e., employment, driving, traveling, 'human resourcing,' or labeling one's self a 'persona.' The labeling of one's self a 'persona' is when you say you are an article in commerce, or you answer to some form of commercial process which does not specifically call you. Take for example the following: You work 'as' a welder, or you 'are' a welder. It is all in the words. 'As' means like or similar to, but it does not mean you 'are' the commercial article. The latter phrase says you 'are' a 'mercator,' merchant, a thief. This is so important. It comes down to a battle for Gods elect:

"Mercator, oris, m. [mercor], a trader, merchant, esp. A wholesale dealer (opp. Caupo): Caes., Cic., Juv." Chambers Murray, Latin-English Dictionary (1933) p. 431.
"Mercabilis, e, adj. [mercor], that can be bought: Ov." Chambers Murray, Latin-English Dictionary (1933), p. 431.
"Mercor, ari [merx]. 1. To trade, traffic: Pl. II. To buy, purchase. 1. Lit.: hortos Hor.: aliquid ab aliquo, Cic.; fundum depupillo, Cic.; quanti, Plin. 2. Transf: ego haec oficia mercanda vita puto, Cic. Ep.; hoc mango, Verg. Perf. Part. In Pass. Sense: Sail., prop." Chambers Murray, Latin-English Dictionary (1933), pp. 431-432.

The god of commerce is the Roman god Mercury:

"Mercurius, 1, m. The son of Jupiter and Maia, the messenger of the gods, as a herald. The god of eloquence; the god of traders and thieves; the presider over roads; conductor of departed souls to the Lower World; setlla Mercuri, Cic.; Mercurialis, e, adj.; Mercuriales, ium, m. Pl. A corporation of traders at Rome." Chambers Murray, Latin-English Dictionary (1933), p. 432.

Good and Lawful Christian Men are to abstain from the appearance of evil. Notice traders and thieves are on an equal basis here. And this is why commerce must be fully licensed, regulated, and taxed. Thieves deal in speculation, i.e., inflation, deflation, market trends, etc., to derive benefit in the form of gain or profit to the detriment of the public. Speculation is:

"SPECULATE. (See Speculation) To undertake a venture the results of which are undetermined and can only be conjectured, with the hope or idea of profiting thereby. The purchase or sale of stocks, commodities, metals, merchandise, or the like, in the hopes of making a profit [getting a benefit] on account of expected but not yet determined fluctuations of market situations or prices [inflation or deflation] at the time the speculation is entered into." Frank Henius, "A Dictionary of Foreign Trade" (1946), p. 428. [Insertions added]
"SPECULATION. From the Latin speculare, to observe, to look around. The buying or selling of something, or the venture in a transaction, the profits [benefits] of which are uncertain and subject to change." Frank Henius, "A Dictionary of Foreign Trade" (1946) p. 428. [Insertion added]
"SPECULATOR. The person who buys or sells something, or enters into a transaction by which he hopes to profit [benefit] although at the time of buying, selling, or entering the transaction the chances of profit are uncertain and subject to change" Frank Henius, "A Dictionary of Foreign Trade" (1946), p. 428.
"The gambler [speculator] courts fortune [benefit, commodum]; the insured seeks to avoid misfortune. The contract of gambling tends to increase the inequality of fortune, while the contract of insurance tends to equalize fortune [communism]." Vance, Insurance (1954), p. 93. [Emphasis and insertion added.]

This is what is happening all the time. Words have been changed to protect the speculators. They are now called 'bankers,' 'brokers,' 'insurers,' 'investors,' 'real estate salesmen,' 'venture capitalists,' 'entrepreneurs,' ad nauseam. A question arises at this point: How long or often can government tax a 'commodity?' The answer is as long as that commodity is navigated through commerce, deriving a benefit from the public, i.e., to the detriment of the public, it is taxable:

"'Commerce' in the sense in which the word is used in the constitution is co-extensive in its meaning with intercourse." Carson River Lumbering Co. v. Patterson (1867), 33 C. 334.
"Commerce includes intercourse, navigation, and not traffic alone." Lord v. Goodall, Nelson & Perkins S. S. Co. (1881), 102 US. 541, 26 L.Ed. 224.

What appears normal is not Scriptural at all. Good and Lawful Christian Men are warned in Scripture to not deal in such speculation:

"Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away." James 4:13-14.

For this reason, when we all stepped into commerce, we all compromised our traditionally vested rights. You have only two absolute 'unalienable rights': Life and Liberty. Everything else is conditioned on your conduct and consent. Your Life and Liberty are vested by God in Genesis 2:7. Dominion over property is conditional, this being the lesson of Adam in the garden.

Just how did we all step into 'commerce?' Perhaps the easiest way to put this is: we left the land seeking something that really never existed in the first place, except in our own minds, which can be manipulated. Now many of you will say, "We still have our farm." Not so, if it is registered in the county recorder, or if you are registered to vote, or if it has a mortgage, or if it is an asset of a trust, corporation, partnership, etc., or if it has ever been sold for commercial paper, or if its owner, is receiving mail at that 'address'. The status of the estate follows the status of its owner. This is what I mean about leaving the land. We were never to sell or compromise the land, because it is not ours: "The earth is the Lords, and the fulness thereof, the world, and they that dwell therein." Psalm 24: 1. We were to occupy 'till He returns; when He comes to take back that which belongs to Him. Occupation is not buying and selling for profit, or speculation from our neighbor. The armies of the earth do not buy and sell; their sponsoring speculators, however, do.

Just how dangerous can 'harmless commerce' get? I believe the following remarks by Major General Smedley Butler, from his 1933 Armistice Day speech in Philadelphia, tell the story about the links between commerce and war:

"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small insider group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit [profit) of the very few at the expense [detriment] of the masses.
"The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent interest over here [to pay war bonds from previously funded wars], then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 hundred percent. Then, the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag. This is done to defend some lousy investment of the bankers [speculators]."
"There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its 'finger men' to point out enemies, its 'muscle men' to destroy enemies, its 'brain men' to plan war preparations, and a Big Boss supernationalist capitalism [owned by the previous war's bondholders and speculators]."
"I spent most of my time being a high muscle man for big business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism."
"I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American Oil interests in 1914. 1 helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street."
"The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. 1 brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China, in 1927, 1 helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested." cited in R. E. McMaster, 'Wealth for All Religion, Politics and War' (1982) pp. 210 & 211. [Insertions added.]
"From whence come wars and fightings among you? Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because you ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts." James 4:1-3.

When commerce begins to wane, and profits are low, wars are fought to create or protect markets for the speculators, who own governments through funding systems, and the taxing power is nothing more than imposed slavery:

"FUNDING SYSTEM, Eng. law. The name given to a plan which provides that on the creation of a public loan, funds shall immediately be formed and secured by law, for the payment of the interest, until the state shall redeem the whole, and also for the gradual redemption of the capital itself. This gradual redemption of the capital is called the sinking of the debt, and the fund so appropriated is called the sinking fund." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1859), vol. I, pp. 551-552.
"FUNDING SYSTEM. Practice of borrowing money to defray expenses of government.
"In the early history of the system it was usual to set apart the revenue from some particular tax as a fund to the principal and interest of the loan. The earliest record the funding system is found in the history of Venice. In the year 1171, during a war between the republic and the Byzantine emperor Manual Commenas, a Venetian fleet ravaged the eastern coasts, but, being detained by negotiations at Chios, suffered severely from the plague. The remnant of the expedition, returning, took with it the frightful pestilence, which ravaged Venice and produced a popular commotion in which the doge was killed To carry on the war, the new doge, Sebastian. Giani, ordered a forced loan. Every citizen was obliged to contribute one-hundredth of his property, and he was to be paid by the state five per cent interest, the revenues being mortgaged to secure the faithful performance of the contract. To manage the business, commissioners were appointed, called the Chamber of Loans, which after the lapse of centuries grew into the Bank of Venice. Florence and other Italian republics practiced the system; and it afterwards became general in Europe. Its object is to provide large sums of money for the immediate exigencies of the state, which it would be impossible to raise by direct taxation.
"In England the funding system was inaugurated in the reign of William III. The Bank of England, like the Bank of Venice and the Bank of St. George at Genoa, grew out of it. In order to make it easy to procure money to carry on the war with France, the government proposed to raise a loan for which, as usual, certain revenues were to set aside, and the subscribers were to be made a corporation, with exclusive banking privileges. The loan was rapidly subscribed for, and the Bank of England was the corporation which it brought into existence. It was formerly the practice in England to borrow money for fixed periods and these loans were called terminable annuities. Later, the practice is different, loans being payable only at the option of the government; these are termed interminable annuities. The rate of interest on the earlier loans was generally fixed at three and a half per cent and sold at such a rate below par as to conform to the state of the money market. It is estimated that two-fifths of the entire debt of England consists of this excess over the amount of money actually received for it. The object of such a plan was to promote speculation and attract capitalists; and it is still pursued in France.
"Afterwards, however, the government receded from this policy, and, by borrowing at high rates, were enabled, when the rate of interest declined, by offering to pay off the loan, to reduce the interest materially. The national debt of England consists of many different loans, all of which are included in the term funds. Of these, the largest in amount and importance are the three per cent consolidated annuities, or consols, as they are commonly called. They originated in 1751, when an act was passed consolidating several separate three per cent loans into one general stock, the dividends of which, are payable on the 5th of January and 5th of July at the Bank of England. The bank being the fiscal agent of the government, pays the interest on most of the funds, and also keeps the transferbooks. When stock is sold, it is transferred on the books at the bank to the new purchaser, and the interest is paid to those parties in whose names the stock is registered, at the closing of the books a short time previous to the dividend day. Stock is bought and sold at the stock exchange generally through brokers. Time sales, when the seller is not the actual possessor of the stock are illegal, but common. They are usually made deliverable on certain fixed days, called accounting days; and such transactions are called 'for account,' to distinguish them from the ordinary sales and purchases for cash. Stock-jobbers are persons who act as middlemen between sellers and purchasers. They usually fix a price at which they will sell and buy so that sellers and purchasers can always find a market for stock or can purchase it in such quantities as they may desire, without delay or inconvenience.
"In America the funding system [principally derived from the Lincoln administration] has been fully developed. The general government, as well as those of the states, have found it necessary to anticipate their revenue for the promotion of public works and other purposes. The many magnificent works of internal improvement which have added so much to the wealth of the country were mainly constructed with money borrowed by the states. The canals of New York, and many railroads in the western states, owe their existence to the system.
"The funding system enables the government to raise money in exigencies, and to spread over many years the taxation which would press too severely on one [see Cong. U.S.A., Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 1 & 2]. It affords an easy way to invest money on good security, and tends to identify interests of the state and the people. But it is open to objections, the principal of which is that it induces statesmen to countenance expensive and oftentimes questionable projects who would not dare to carry out their plans were they forced to provide the means from direct taxation. McCulloch, Dict. of Comm.; Sewell, Banking." Bouvier's Law Dict. (1914), pp. 1323-1324. [Emphasis and insertions added] [In other words, unless and until a loan is repaid, property/works created by use of loans are property of a lender].
"But there is no fact in the history of this war debt more startling than this: that the great body of these bankers and bondholders were, at the beginning of the war, but poor men; many of them helpless bankrupts, and many of the pretended loans were mere collusions between bankers and government officers [actors], entered into for the purpose of creating money for the one [purported government] and power for the other [bankers], at the expense of the people, who would be required to raise standing armies from their children to support this [banking] power and contribute taxes from their labor to maintain the [government] funding system. "This has always been the case in the history of paper money inflations; that the pretended benefactors of government have been simply swindlers, who have imposed upon the people their worthless promises to pay in lieu of [specie] as the pretext for their robbery.
"This is true, with scarcely an exception, in every country, that the government is never assisted by paper in any war. Those who issue it amass fortunes by the issue. To this one our country has not been an exception.
"In the history of insolvent estates, bankrupts, merchants, contested debts and repudiated obligations, which make up the assets of the last six years, it must not startle mankind that the honest people have thrown off the yoke rudely placed upon them by reckless and unscrupulous tyrants. " Judge Henry Clay Dean, 1868.

And just guess where these international speculators get the bodies to die fighting their little skirmishes? Those who are on the benefice, fief, feud. This is on the international level. Domestically, one can find the same occurred during the Lincoln v. All States War:

"By mere supineness, the people of the South have permitted the Yankees to monopolize the carrying trade, with its immense profits. We have yielded to them the manufacturing business, in all its departments, without an effort, until recently, to become manufacturers ourselves. We have acquiesced in the claim of the North to do all the importing, and most of the exporting business, for the whole Union. Thus, the North has been aggrandized, in a most astonishing degree, at the expense of the South. It is no wonder that their villages have grown into magnificent cities. It is not strange that they have merchant princes', dwelling in gorgeous palaces and reveling in luxuries transcending the luxurious appliances of the East! How could it be otherwise? New York city, like a mighty queen of commerce, sits proudly upon her throne, sparkling in jewels and waving an undisputed commercial scepter over the South. By means of her railways and navigable streams, she sends out her long arms to the extreme South; and, with an avidity rarely equaled, grasps our gains and transfers them to herself and taxing us at every step, depleting us as extensively as possible without actually destroying us." Vicksburg Daily Whig, January 18, 1860.
"You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers for northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions.
"We do not intend that you shall reduce us to such a condition. But I can tell you what your folly and injustice will compel us to do. It will compel us to be free from your domination, and more self-reliant than we have been. It will compel us to manufacture for ourselves, to build up our own commerce, our own great cities, our own railroads and canals; and to use the tribute money we now pay you for these things for the support of a government which will be friendly to all our interests, hostile to none of them." The Honorable John H. Reagan of Texas, January 15, 1861, Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 2d session, p. 391.

Domestically, Lincoln used deception to "save" the Union. This is evident from the record: If the Union were saved intact, Reconstruction was a nullity because the states were intact. If, however, the Union was destroyed, Reconstruction was necessary for erecting a new union in the image and likeness of its speculating creator, Mercury, under the imposed military power of the commander-in-chief, dedicated to the proposition that public slavery, by destroying Christianity in the states, for enhancing and expanding commerce, is a better idea.

It is no secret that the criminally infamous Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase, in 1861, through his factotum Cooke, boasted that the initial bonds issued to fund the Lincoln v. All States War were a first mortgage upon all the property of the United States. It is also no secret that the interest on these bonds was not paid as late as 1953. This is that same Chief Justice Chase, by the way, who created and established, by his own "Judicial decree," the huge tax base to pay his filthy war bonds sold to the Bank of England, contained in the purported Fourteenth Amendment. This is why the "public"debt cannot be questioned. Could this have been a conflict of interest?

It is no secret "harmless commerce" is dangerous:

"Principiis obsta [oppose the first appearance of evil], nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers, and destroyers press upon them so fast, that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon the American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour. The revenue creates pensioners, and the pensioners urge for more revenue. The people grow less steady, spirited, and virtuous, the seekers more numerous and more corrupt, and every day increases the circles of their dependents and expectants, until virtue, integrity, public spirit, simplicity, and frugality become the objects of ridicule and scorn, and vanity, luxury, foppery, selfishness, meanness, and downright venality swallow up the whole society." John Adams, Works IV, p. 43. [Insertion added]
"For resistance to law, every government has ample powers to punish offenders; for usurpation, governments have provided no adequate remedy." Judge Henry Clay Dean, 1868.

What hath "Commerce" wrought? The destruction of a confederacy of Christian states.

The Theory of Evolution vs. Law

Reader's Note: This should be read in conjunction with Randy Lee's essay on 'human being,' 'natural person,' etc., in "To Be or Not To Be: a Human Being?"

A headline in "The Grand Island Independent," Grand Island, Nebraska, June 7, 1996 read: "The truth about cats and dogs (and humans) comes out in Aurora." The story was about a pet parade in Aurora, Nebraska, sponsored by a pet food company.

The important item in the story is its frequent allusions to similarities between children in the parade and the animals they brought to show off.

The label 'human' is attached to children in a way that would never have been used before Charles Darwin wrote his 'The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or, The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. (1859)"

Before Darwin, people were men, women, and Christians. The word 'human' was not used to refer to men, except in scientific circles (among evolutionists) because of the dominance of Christianity that existed in America, before Lincoln's War.

After the War, the decline of Christian influence impacted every area of life because every area of life is connected in thought, word, and deed, to every other area, whether one knows it and admits it, or not. This can be easily seen from the following:

"Nor are we to imagine that our own natural Reason, without other Helps, will find out the true sense of Scripture. No, we must make use of other Helps, such as the Languages the Scriptures were wrote in, the Idioms thereof, and of every particular Writer, the Manners, and Customs, and Opinions of those People they were writ to. These are necessary Helps to a right Understanding of Scripture; and without these whoever pretends to understand and criticize upon Scriptures is a Fool. Where Men have no other Guide than Reason, they must make the best Use of it, and free themselves from whatever might hinder it from exerting its Force. And whatever appears upon a due Examination of their rational Faculties to be true, they must believe; and whatever appears finest to be done, they are bound to practice [setting customs through common usage]." Boyle's Lectures, 1737, vol. III, p. 7. [Insertion added; emphasis in original.]

Thus, while many may believe their ideas of theology or atheology are separate from their view of the cosmos, law, art, or science, etc., in fact all are related and each influences the other.

If Christian thought declines anywhere, it declines everywhere, whether anyone notices it or not. Humanism, then enters the void and redefines all thought in every area of life and subtlety, and gradually replaces Christianity with new forms of thought, word, and deed, as the Humanist claims dominion in every area of life.

Yet Humanism never acquires true dominion, because its growth and power is always under the sovereign power of God who controls its every aspect.

Humanism is inherently elitist, and thus, it took quite 'naturally' to Darwin, paying special attention to the phrase, 'Preservation of Favored Races.'

A Humanist views everyone else (except for himself and his peers) as ones not naturally selected by evolution as those who are to follow the elite's directions and be told what to do by the social, legal, and political elite, styled as the 'experts.'

The elite see themselves as specially chosen by evolution, an impersonal and objective force, to lead all others not so chosen and it tends to view the unchosen as sub-human types, whose existence is necessary, however, to function as the servants of the elite's agenda.

Humanism, thus, tends to a low view of life. In their view, it makes sense to incorporate the word 'human' as a stock in trade because the word indicates that man is merely a higher form of animal with no image of God impressed upon his nature.

In the Humanistic world, the idea of one's 'humanity' and its related words become the lingua franca or, language of every area of life.

Thus, justification for having made a mistake is explained by saying, "I'm only human." When one does something extraordinary, one is said to have displayed "The triumph of the human spirit" Weather is not controlled by God, but by 'mother nature' who, as a woman, charges her mind so often that, what she does is impossible to predict.

If Humanism dominates law, only the elite survive, by living off lower forms of humanity who've been denied - by natural selection - the right to join the elite.

If Humanism dominates political systems or civil governments, such systems always tend toward centralized power in the hands of a few at the top who are, of course, chosen by Natural Selection as the fittest to survive and lead.

Thus, the 'scientific basis' of Humanism has imported the fictions of evolution and provided grist for the modern military systems of imperialistic government modeled after the old Roman Imperial state. And, in this process, it has, quite naturally, succeeded in creating the only thing it knows how to create; pain, sorrow, death, destruction, and tears.

Another problem of the central starting point for the Theory of Evolution is the doctrine of chance and survival of the fittest, which are like the horns of a dilemma in the sense that logically, they are the only basis for a theory that does not call on God and His Revelation.

Law in the Evolutionary scheme is thus purely a matter of chance as to whether or not one finds justice therein. And all decisions of their courts are based solely on who is fittest to survive, i.e., on who has the most money to purchase the services of counsel, etc.

But, the most telling point of all is, since the basis of evolutionary schemes is chance, there can be no such thing as law, in any real sense, for the very existence of the idea of law itself demands order and authority as its ultimate starting point or presupposition.

Thus, throughout history among the Egyptians, the Greeks, and Romans, whose religious view was dominated by the capricious gods created by man's reason, we find the same theory of evolution and the same system of arbitrary and capricious law.

'Except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it."

But, the day will come, and now is, when the church has made herself ready, that the Judgement of God will descend on the ungodly with a vengeance and the victory will belong to the People of God and His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.

Come then, let us study to show ourselves approved; We needeth not be ashamed of our calling, rightly dividing the word of Truth.

Look up, for your salvation draweth nigh.

To Be or Not To Be:

a Human Being?

by Randy Lee

From Ballentine's Law Dictionary, 1948 Edition, 'Human Being' is defined as follows: 'See monster'. From the same dictionary, 'monster' is defined: 'A human-being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal.'

This is an unusual definition, but like all Law Dictionaries on this subject, a non-definition. It only states that a 'human being' is a higher animal. It is not found anywhere in Scripture that a Christian Man or Woman is an animal or part of the animal kingdom This being the case, then what exactly is a 'human being'?

From the Oxford New English Dictionary of 1901, 'human' is defined as, '3. Belonging or relative to man as distinguished from God or superhuman beings; pertaining to the sphere or faculties of man (with implication of limitation or inferiority); mundane; secular. (Often opposed to divine.)'

'Secular' being the important word here, we look to the multi-definitions in the 1992 Random House Webster's College Dictionary: " 'Secular' adj. 1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things not regarded as sacred: temporal. 2. not relating to or concerned with religion (opposed to sacred). 3. concerned with non-religious subjects. 4. not belonging to a religious order: not bound by monastic vows."

Could it be that 'human' means un-Godly. From the same dictionary, a look at a combination of the two: "'Secular humanism' n. any set of beliefs that promotes human values without specific allusion to religious doctrines." And, " 'secularism' n. 1. Secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith or worship. 2. the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the influence of religious beliefs."

In conjunction with this, from Collier's New Dictionary of the English Language, 1928, 'humanitarian' is defined: n. 'a philanthropist; an anti-Trinitarian who rejects the doctrine of Christ's divinity, a perfectionist." From the above Random House Dictionary 'humanitarianism' is defined: n. 'the doctrine that humankind may become perfect without divine aid.'

With no definition of 'human being' in Law, Mellinkoff's Dictionary of American Legal Usage, 1992, defines: 'Person' as, 1. "a human being - without regard to sex, legitimacy, or competence. This person is the central figure in law, as elsewhere, characterized by personal attributes of mind, intention, feelings, weaknesses, morality common to human beings; with rights and duties under the law. This is the person, sometimes called an individual, and often referred to in the law as a natural person as distinguished from an artificial person (sense 3)."

Of course, 'morality common to human beings' is not explained, because that would reveal to much. Again, in Shawmut Bank N.A. vs. Valley Farms, (610 A.2d 652, 654) it states, "For purpose of statute protecting certain property from post-judgment remedies, and therefore from prejudgment attachment, 'natural person' means 'human being', not artificial or juristic person'.

So, if natural person and human being are considered the same in the law, let's take a closer look at what a 'natural person' is. As you may know, all government codes, rules and regulations only attach to corporations, partnerships and natural persons. In American law, it seems that a definition of 'natural person' does not exist. To get any idea of what a natural person is, we have to go to English law. In the 17th Century, Lord Coke differentiated between 'natural persons' and 'moral persons in a community' in the following statement from his Institutes: ...."we must observe, that estate is defined by the civilians, the capacity of moral persons, for, as natural persons have a certain space in which their natural existence is placed, and in which they perform their natural actions, so have persons in a community a certain state or capacity, in which they are supposed to exist, to perform their moral acts, and exercise all civil relations," (2 Inst. 669).

With 'natural man' being the same as 'natural person', we find further evidence of exactly what a 'human being' is. From the above Random House Dictionary, page 901, " 'Natural' adj. 17. natural man: unenlightened or unregenerate." From the same Dictionary, page 1461, " 'unregenerate', 1. not regenerate; unrepentant

2. unconvinced by or unconverted to a particular religion, sect, or movement. 4. wicked, sinful; dissolute. 5. an unregenerate person."

In conjunction with this, from The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 1933, 'naturalism' is defined as: 'a system of morality or religion having a purely natural basis; a view of the world and of man's relationship to it, in which only the operation of natural, as opposed to supernatural or spiritual, laws and forces is assumed.' And 'naturalist' is defined as: 'One who follows the light of nature, as contrasted with revelation.'

And of course, the Scriptures being the final authority, confirms all of the above, at I Corinthians 2:14, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirt of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Therefore, when a Christian calls him or herself a 'human being', they are saying. "I am an animal; I'm non-religious; I'm unrepentant; I'm wicked, sinful and dissolute. I'm able to do all things and be perfect without Jesus Christ; I'm subject to man's law, rather than God's Law."

Great Works of God on Behalf of America

A Sermon by Thomas Prince on The Salvations of God (1746)

Edited by John William

It is common in all movements for people to worry over the numbers of people. It doesn't matter how many are involved, there's never enough. This idea equates power with numbers. The facts are, history is made by dedicated minorities, not by majorities. Christians should know better.

To show that God intervenes on behalf of His righteous people and His righteous causes, we offer excerpts from a sermon preached in colonial America on the anniversary of a great example of God protecting care for His people.

Mr. Prince's Thanksgiving-Sermon on the Salvations of God in 1746. In Part set forth in a Sermon At the South Church in Boston, Being the Day of the Anniversary Thanksgiving, In Massachusetts Bay in New England Where the most remarkable Salvations of the Year past, in Europe and America, as far as they are come to our Knowledge, are briefly considered, by Thomas Prince, M.A. A Pastor of said Church.

Jer.16:8. O the Hope of Israel, the Savior thereof in Time of Trouble!

Psalm.70:1. In my Distress I cried unto the LORD, and He heard me.

Psalm.105:5. Remember his marvellous Works that He hath done.

Ex.16:13. Stand still, and see the Salvation of the LORD!

THE Existence of an absolutely perfect Being, which we call the DIETY unavoidably infers his absolutely perfect Providence, exactly answerable to the absolute Perfection of his Nature. For as his Understanding is absolutely perfect, it must needs eternally have seen all Things possible to be and come to pass, both by his Influence and Permission: And as out of all these Possibilities, his absolutely perfect Wisdom must needs select Those to come into Existence which are fittest (all Things perfectly considered) to be effected and permitted; the same Wisdom will eternally direct him, both in creating, supporting, over-ruling, and permitting, in a perfect Correspondence with his absolutely perfect Foresight.

[Editor. In this way, Mr. Prince discusses God's Providence and how He takes care of His own, in spite of circumstances. ]

Salvation is sometimes in Scripture used in the largest Sense: Comprehending both Preservation and Deliverance from all Kinds of Evil, of Sin, Disorder and Trouble, felt and threatening, in the Present State, and Preservation from every Evil in the Future; together with the Bestowment of all Kinds of Good contrary to those Evils; and all This forever. But the Salvation in the Text is meant of Preservation from a threatening Host of human, powerful and destroying Enemies.

As the sovereign GOD, in Times of his People's Danger from them, is to be eyed as having all the Parts and Powers of Nature in his Hands, both angelical, humane and elementary, using each according to his perfect Wisdom and sovereign Pleasure; he has Two Ways of working out Salvation for them.

1. By exciting, guiding and strengthening them in the Use of proper Means for their Deliverance, and crowning their Endeavours with Success. And then their Business is to exert themselves both in turning and praying to him, contriving, fortifying, fighting, and trusting in him, all together: And when delivered, to ascribe to him the Glory, for strengthening, guiding and succeeding them.
2. When proper Means cannot be had, or are utterly insufficient, either thro' the vastly superiour Power and Skill of their Enemies, or thro' their quick or unexpected Onsets; then he sometimes works Salvation for them by other Means, either Angels, Men or Elements; and this in so remarkable a Way, as clearly to show his providential Care, Power and Wisdom: So that while it was out of their Skill and Power to defend themselves, they could only stand still and see the saving Hand and Work of GOD. And then it is their Duty, both to turn and cry to him, hope in him, attentively observe the Traces of his Power and Wisdom in working their Deliverance; and then to rise in respectful Wonder, Gratitude, and grateful Acknowledgments and Praises.

And as this latter was the Way of his working out Salvation for his ancient People intended in the Text; in such a Way he has also wrought both for them and others, in after Ages, and gives Instances thereof in the present Day.

[Editor. Mr. Prince then provides several examples of God's Providence.]

But tho' that Salvation of GOD was properly miraculous, and so were divers others wrought for that peculiar People in ancient Times, in order to confirm the Scripture Revelation, then a forming: Yet as in all Ages since their national Rejection, GOD has had, in some Countrey or other, a peculiar People owning his Revelation and their covenant Engagement to him; so he has sometimes brought them into the most threatening Dangers, to humble them for their Sins, awaken them to Repentance, make them sensible of their Dependance on him, excite their Cries to him and Hope and Trust in him; and so preparing them to see the necessary and clear Displays of his Mercy, Power and Wisdom in working their Deliverance; Then he has made them stand still and see it with Wonder: He has in such a Way wrought it by wise and sovereign Influence both on the Minds of Men and elementary Substances, as clearly to show to due Observers, that their Salvation was of his contriving, ordering and effecting, sometimes wholly above, and sometimes wholly without their Power and Policy.

And this brings us to apply the Text in our considering the wonderful Salvations GOD has wrought for the whole British Empire with her Allies in general, and for these her Northern Colonies in special, in the Year past; I mean since our Anniversary Thanksgiving on the 5th of last December, and the Intelligence then and since received. But as I have published Remarks on the great, the comprehensive and the happy Salvation GOD was pleased to give us the Victory of Culloden; on which all our civil and religious Liberties, our Privileges, Properties and the Lives of Multitudes seemed under GOD to be depending; I may but just mention it, and refer you to them.

And that we may sing his Praises with Understanding, I propose to rank our Observations under these three general Heads -

1. The dangerous Enemies we have been concerned with.
2. The dangerous Circumstances we were in a Year ago and since.
3. The wonderful Salvations GOD has wrought for us, while we in America have stood still and seen them.
4. The dangerous Enemies we have been concerned with. For they have such a Connection with our dangerous Circumstances, that without a due Consideration of those our Enemies, we cannot duely see the Greatness of our Salvation from them.

Our Dangers chiefly rose from the vast Increase of Empire, Power and Influence in the popish, cruel, ambitious, House of Bourbon.

[Editor. Mr. Prince recounts the history of the House of Bourbon, and details their atrocities, including starting the French and Indian War in America. He relates the background to the present hostilities between England and France.]

On the Death of the Emperor Charles VI, October 1740, his eldest Daughter was rightfully declared Queen of Hungary and Bohemia The Kings of Great Britain, France, Poland, Prussia and the Dutch were Guarantees to her Succession. The French King sent to condole her Loss, congratulate her succession, and assure her, he would stand by and maintain her: Yet in three or four Months, he treacherously engaged the Kings of Spain, Poland, Prussia and Elector of Bavaria, to divide her Dominions between them; the French King pretending he engaged against her, not to get her Dominions, but only as Auxiliary to the Elector who laid Claim to them, who by his Influence became Emperor.

Thus, all these Powers barbarously fell on the young Lady in 1741, then about twenty four Years of Age: In a few Months they seized her Kingdom of Bohemia, Part of her Province of Silesia, and other Places, and threatened the Rest, while she had none to help her -

'Till King GEORGE with the British Nations, touch'd with her Distresses, resenting the Treachery and Baseness of her Enemies, viewing the greater Danger of Europe, knowing the French King was only making all others Tools to his own Ambition; and considering the wise and just Engagement of the British Crown to maintain her Possession of Dominions of the House of Austria, of absolute Necessity to keep all Europe from being enslaved to the insatiable House of Bourbon; - arose for her Deliverence; and resolved, that tho' all other States and Princes should prove persidious, they would give a glorious Instance of the Fidelity to sacred Treaties, as well as of their wise Care for the Safety of Europe, and generous Tenderness for that young Princess (one of her principal Friends) in her great Distresses.

In Pursuance of this - they both sent her Troops and Money, and bro't the King of Poland as Elector of Saxony, to help her in Bohemia and Germany; as also engaged the King of Sardinia to help her in Italy, sent Monies to him, and employ'd their Fleets to assist him.

Enrag'd at This, because our King is faithful to the very Engagement they had treacherously broken the French King, in the Winter of 1743,4, sends out his Fleet in Concert with the Spanards to fall upon our's near Toulon; another powerful Armament to invade the Kingdom, and place a popish Pretender on the British Throne; declares War against us; and sends forth Multitudes of Privateers to destroy our Trade and take our Treasures: On his South Eastern Border seizes the Dutchy of Savoy, the hereditary Country of the King of Sardinia: And in America employs both his Privateers and barbarous Indians against us.

[Editor. In sum, France plays both ends against the middle and in the death of an ally, her treachery is exposed.]

In Sum, our dangerous Enemies were These - The three Kings of the House of Bourbon; the 1st setting on the Throne of France and Navarre, the 2d on the Throne of Spain, the 3d of the Kingdoms of Sicily and Naples, most firmly united in one Design and Interest, to aggrandize their House and acquire the Countries of their Neighbours; having drawn the King of Prussia and State of Genoa to their Alliance, with the popish Highlanders and Jacobites of Scotland forming an Army of Ten Thousand; on one Side - against King GEORGE, the Queen of Hungary, the King of Sardinia, and the Elector of Saxony on the other.

[Editor. Mr. Prince totals up the territorial holdings of France (the largest in Europe) and describes dangerous situations Europe, England, and America. There is even a rebellion among England's subject's in the north.]

In Great Britain, a dangerous Rebellion under the young Pretender rose and surprizingly prevailed: the Rebels had carried the North of Scotland, passed the Forth, seized Edinburgh the Capital City of Scotland, beat the King's Army at Tranent, mightily grew, marched into England took Carlisle; on Dec. 4, the Day before our last annual Thanksgiving, entered Derby the chief Town of the Shire, in the Heart of England, but about a hundred Miles from London, in their March for that city: And the Ports of France were full of Vessels, Soldiers and warlike Stores, to supply the Rebels and invade the Kingdom.

In the Winter Season, while our Ships were fully employed to guard the Coasts of Great Britain, the French Privateers entirely reigned before the Mouth of the English Channel, took almost all the Vessels of our Nation bound into it, and carried the People into Captivity.

And lastly, A rich Fleet of Galleons got also safe into Spain, to recruit funds: Whereby both the Spanish, French, Genoese, and Neapolitans were more enabled and spirited to carry on the War with fresh Vigour against us.

[Editor. Mr. Prince then describes the French fleet that turned its eye on America.]

1. In the last Winter and early Spring, the French with the utmost Application fitted out at Brest and Rochfort, the greatest and most powerful Armament against these Northern Colonies, that was ever sent into North America: Having twenty Men of War, a hundred Transports, about Eight Thous, disciplined with veteran Officers, and vast Quantities of Provision, Powder, Shot, Arms, Cannon, Bombs and Mortars, sufficient to take the strongest Places.
2. They were under one Commander of Figure, Duke D'Anville; a Nobleman of Ability, Skill and Courage; who came with Resolution to exert himself to his own Honour, and to the Glory of his King and Nation or die in the Cause:
3. They own'd they had the best Plans and many skilful Pilots with them, well acquainted with all the Coasts and Harbours of Newfoundland, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia and New England; in particular of Louisbourg, Canso, Jebucta, Annapolis, Casco Bay, Boston, &c.
4. They came with the exciting Motives, of Resentment, Policy and Necessity. - Of Resentment; for our saving Annapolis, and disappointing the French Invasion there in 1744; and for our taking Louisbourg, destroying their Fishery, blocking up the Bay of St. Lawrence, taking a great Man of War, the East India and South Sea Ships, in 1745: To recover their lost fortified City and Harbour of Louisbourg, their lost Opportunity by their Privateers thence to seize our Vessels, their lost Fishery with infinite Profits thence arising, their lost Fort and Harbour of Annapolis, their lost Territory of Nova Scotia, and their lost Reputation in Europe and America, especially among Indian Savages: And last, to save Canada, with their Settlements and Trade, in North America; either by taking Cape Breton, oblige us to come to Peace and save their Encroachments in the Netherlands; or by taking Annapolis, oblige us to return Cape Breton; and save themselves from ignominious Death or Ruin, in case they return without taking the one or the other.
5. That which rendered our Case more dangerous, was, that we were a long while wholly ignorant of their Designs against us: And when we had them hinted, we were easy with hearing that Admiral Martin was blocking them up, first at Brest and then at Rochfort, and that we had a powerful Fleet of Men of War and Transports preparing at Portsmouth in England to come on the Expedition to Canada.
6. At Length they got out of Brest and sailed to Rochfort: On June 11, they sailed from this last Port, passed by Admiral Martin's Squadron unobserved, and he cou'd not find what Way they were gone: Yea, while they were coming toward us, Admiral Leftock with his Fleet at Portsmouth sailed seven Times from England; and was as oft drove back by contrary Winds, 'till Mid-September, when our Enemies Fleet came to Nova Scotia, and the British Ministry judging it too late in the Year, diverted their Enterprize.
7. In the mean Time; while Duke Anville's Fleet is coming, a fatal Illness sweeps away many of our New England Soldiers at Cape Breton: And being now without any help from England or any where else; if GOD had given our Foes a speedy Passage, and had brought them on in Health to Louisburg; they had come there with Surprize: And with their Showers of Bombs from twenty five Mortars, and Cannon shot from fifty Brass Field Pieces, it seems highly probable, they wou'd soon have taken the Place. And then Placentia and St. John's in Newfoundland, with all their Fish and Vessels wou'd have been as nothing to them. All the French and Indians in Nova Scotia and the neighbouring Places would have join'd them at once, and made them ten or twelve Thousand strong, besides their Seamen. Annapolis wou'd have soon reduced. And then their mighty and triumphing Forces, both French and Indians, both by Land and Sea, wou'd doubtless come quick all along our Eastern Shoars, carried all before them like a sweeping Deluge: and where they cou'd be stop'd, and whether this Town cou'd have baffled them, GOD only knows.
8. In the mean Time we are this Summer exceedingly molested with our Indian Enemies round about, both in this and the neighbouring Provinces: Murthering our Men, Women, Children; carrying many into a barbarous Captivity; breaking up many Houses and divers Villages and new Towns, destroying Cattle and Fields of Corn; yea seven hundred French and Indians destroying a Fort an hundred Foot square on our western Borders on Aug. 19: Reducing us to such Distresses as have not been known in the present Generation: And Sep. 2 we are informed, that about two thousand French and Indians were assembled at Menis in Nova Scotia, in order to besiege Annapolis.
9. Our Trouble is yet increased by our surprizing Intelligence from the six valiant Nations of Mohawk Indians who had been our constant Friends from the Beginning of the Colonies: The French had made them believe, they had taken an English Letter, wherein they pretend we wrote, `We intend first to subdue Canada, `and then destroy the Indian Nations, the French in Canada `being the only Obstacles that hinder us:' Which made a dangerous Impression on them, raised their Jealousies, began an Alienation, disposed them to join our Enemies, and was like to lead to fatal Consequences.
10. All this while we were wholly ignorant of the French Fleet coming towards us - 'till at the same Time, viz. Sept. 2, we had a Hint in a Letter from Hull in England of June 24, that they were sailed about ten Days before, but none knew whether: Sept. 9, by a Ship from Liverpool, was the Hint above confirmed, and that many in England tho't them bound for North America. About a Week after, we begin to hear a Rumour of a large Number of Ships seen near Cape Sable Shoar; but whether French or English, we are at a Loss to guess. About a Week after, the Rumour is confirmed; but who they are, remains uncertain, 'till Sept. 28: And then by Express from Governor Knowles and Admiral Townsend at Louisburg, we are inform'd they are the French Armada, were seventy Sail when they came from France; fourteen being ships of the Line from fifty to seventy four Guns, two Fire Ships, with eight thousand Troops on board; standing for Jebucta or le Have: And by a Vessel from Jamaica, that the four French Men of War which had escaped Commodore Mitchel near Domingo, were design'd to join them.
11. And lastly, About Mid-September, Eight Ships of the Line and forty others arrive at Jebucta, the Port of Rendezvous on the south eastern Shoar of Nova Scotia, one of the finest Harbours of the Globe; in which the British Nation had utterly neglected for a Course of thirty Years from the Peace of Utrecht, to settle one Inhabitant; and in the very Way to interrupt all our Fishery, and even all Trade from Great Britain, Ireland, Newfoundland and Cape Breton, to the Colonies on the Main, and from These to them: There they water, wood, refresh, careen, refit; thence take our Ships, strike Surprize and Terror thro' the Countries round about them. and thence deserting their Design of attempting Louisburg, they set sail with all their Power towards us.

And thus, in the Room of our long look'd for Friends from England to go against Canada, there are now coming on a powerful Armament of resolute Enemies; and none to prevent them or defend us against them. We look for powerful Friends, but our Eyes fail us; we look in vain. Our Case seems like that of David, Psalm 142&3, `We look on our right Hand and behold; there is no Man that knows us, Refuge fails us, no Man seems to care for our Souls: We cry unto Thee, O LORD! Thou art our Refuge and Portion in the Land of the Living! O attend to our Cry, for we are brought very low; we stretch forth our Hands to Thee!; hear us speedily, O LORD: Cause us to hear thy Loving kindness in the Morning, for in Thee do we trust;Deliver us O LORD from our Enemies: We flee to Thee to hide us!'

[Editor. But, things in Europe begin to bad for the French. The carefully contrived alliance begins to crumble as their armies suffer great losses. Even the English rebellion is put down.]

But, Let us now stand still and see the Salvations of GOD in North America -

On two Accounts in general, tho' widely different, in the last Year and This are as remarkable as any we have seen, since the happy Accession of the Protestant House of Hanover to the British Crown: - The last Year 1745, - for GOD's succeeding our Enterprize in a wondrous Manner, and giving us Cape Breton; - and This, for his working wonderful Salvations for us, while we cou'd only stand still and see them with Admiration; Let this be ever the Character of 1746.

While we knew nothing of Danger, God beheld it, and was working Salvation for us. And when we had none to help in America, He even prevented our Friends in Europe from coming to succour us; that we might see our Salvation was his Work alone, that the Glory belongs entirely to Him. The following Things are observable:

1. That our Enemies Fleet is detained so long in the Harbours of France, even to the 11th of June, tho' ready long before: Whereby a greater Fomes was prepared for scorbutical Weaknesses and Ails, before they arrived at America; whereby they also lost the cooler Weather and more easterly Winds of the Spring, were kept for the Calms and Heat of the Summer, their Voyage must be lengthened, and they cou'd not come with quite so much Surprize upon us.
2. That after their getting clear from the Coast of France, they shou'd be led to bear so far to the South: Whereby they not only went from the straiter Course, but likewise into a more rarified Air and calmer Latitudes, which yet further served to lengthen their Voyage: And they also went into more sultry Climates, in the hottest Months of the Summer; the Air between-decks among so great a Number so closely stowed, must be more suffocating, putrid and nauseous, and both further weaken, and breed Diseases.
3. That partly by these Means, partly by Calms, and partly by contrary Winds; their Voyage was so lengthened out, even to ninety Days from Rochfort, that it was the 9th of September before the fowardest of them arrived at Jebucta.
4. God was pleased to visit them with such a mortal Sickenss; that they owned, Thirteen Hundred died at Sea; and most of the rest were extreamly weakened, wasted and dispirited.
5. That by terrible Storms they were likewise so dispersed in the midst of the Ocean; that by Aug. 26, they had left but twelve Ships of the Line and forty one others, besides five Prizes.
6. That on Sept. 2, at One at Noon, when they came near the Shoals of the Isle of Sables, the most dangerous Place in all the Passage, and had but three Days Sail to Jebucta; GOD raised against them such a violent Storm of Wind, which held all that Day and Night: Wherein one of their Transports was loft on the Shoals; four Ships of the Line and a Transport were seen in great Distress, and never heard of after, and the rest of the Fleet had like to have run on the Shoals in that terrible Night, and were wholly dispersed: Or if they had been but three Days earlier, they had got to Jebucta before the Storm.
7. The Weather after the Storm, was so very foggy for Days, that Duke D'Anville their Admiral and General was obliged to lie off and on, not venturing to approach the Nova Scotia Shoar; that it was Sept. 12, before he got, with but one more Ship of the Line, viz. his Vice Admiral, three more Men of War and five Transports, into Jebucta: There being but one of the Fleet got in three Days before him, and but three more in three Days after him; his Rear Admiral was ten of the Line and all the rest yet missing. And finding his few Ships so shattered, so many Men dead, so many sickly, and no more of his Fleet come in; he sunk into Discouragement, and Sept. 15 died; but in such a Condition, and so swelled, it was generally tho't he poysoned himself, and was buried without any Ceremony. Upon which their Government fell upon the Council of War, their Union was entirely broken, and their Counsels grew divided.
8. After the Storm, the Rear Admiral with five more of the Line and twenty seven more of the Fleet besides the Prizes, discovered each other and gathered together; yet the Weather being foggy and thick, they did not arrive at Jebucta 'till the Day after Duke D'Anville died - Or their Arrival two Days sooner might have revived his Spirits and saved his Life: Tho' they were so exceedingly shattered and sickly, they were forced to stay and loose their fittest Time for doing us Mischief 'till near the midst of October.
9. On the Death of the Duke, the Vice Admiral Estournell being the chief Commander, in Consideration of the deplorable case they were in, proposed to return to France to save the rest of the Men: But the Council of War opposing and voting against him, he was on Sept. 19 in the Morning, found in his Apartment fallen on his Sword, and the next Morning died also: Whereby the chief Command fell on Rear Admiral Jonquire; who with a Council of War resolved to attack English Places in these northern Parts before they wou'd think of returning. In the mean while, they landed their Men to refresh them: And yet their Sickness so prevailed, that they owned there died Eleven Hundred and Thirty more at Jebucta before they left it.
10. It was also very remarkable, that while the French were so generally very sickly, and so many constantly dying, both aboard and ashore; our English Captives, tho' compassionately tending upon and helping them continually, were so universally healthy and strong, that the poor sickly French cou'd not forbear to express their Wonder: Our People taken captive by them being more merciful to them than those of their own Nation. And yet the Sickness spread among our enemy Indians in Nova Scotia, and 'tis said carried off near half their Number.
11. In the mean Time our careful Governour sends out Spies and gets Intelligence - By the Help of God removes the Jealousies of the Mohawks, renews our ancient League of Friendship, engages them on our Side against the French Canadians; sends Companies of Soldiers, who had listed Volunteers for Canada, to help defend Annapolis; Admiral Warren sending his 50 Gun Ship thither also: Our Governour calls in the Regiments of the Province to defend our Capital, who come in with wondrous Chearfulness: Sends Express to Governour Knowles and Admiral Townsend at Louisbourg, with the London Prints informing of Admiral Lestock's waiting for a fair Wind in England, with eighteen Ships of the Line, to sail thither: Oct. 6, with Advice of his Majesty's Council, and at the Desire of the House of Representatives, orders Thursday the 16th, a Day of Prayer and Fasting thro' the Province on this great Occasion.
12. About October 10, the French Council of War at Jebucta being sensible that by dispersing Storms and wasting Sickness, they are utterly disabled for attempting Louisbourg, resolve to sail and take Annapolis. And if they had staid but one Week longer, they wou'd have had a Season of suitable Weather for it. But a Cruizer of theirs having happily taken the Express above for Louisbourg, with the London Prints informing of Admiral Lestock's expected coming, and the Master of the Vessel happily forgetting to observe his Order and throw his Packets overboard; they were carried into Jebucta and opened on the 11th early in the Morning in a Council of War. Upon which, surprized, in the utmost Hurry, they pull down all their Tents, burn a Line of Battle Ship, with a Snow from Carolina, a Vessel from Antigua, and some Fishing Schooners, embark their Soldiers; order two thousand French and Indians to march from Menis to Annapolis: October 13, with forty Sail, twenty Engineers, and thirty Pilots from near Annapolis, they came out to go round Cape Sables, and meet them there; having wrote to the Court, that they determin'd to keep the Seas 'till Nov. 15, N S, if they cou'd not get in sooner.
13. The next Day, they sent three or four of their Fleet with their Sick to France: The Distemper still increasing; our Captives saw them throwing their Dead out of most of their Ships into the Sea, every Day after they left Jebucta, for the three Days they continued with them. October 15, near the Isle of Sables a second Time came on a great and cold Storm, which scattered them again: Yet the next Day, getting once more together; and persevering in their Purpose, they dismiss'd our Captives, who that Night left them lying by, and saw them no more.
14. But the same Day, viz. Thursday Octo. 16, is kept the Day of General Fasting and Prayer throughout the Churches in this Province, on this great Emergency. And that very Night ensuing, the glorious GOD entirely baffled all their Purposes, and put a total End to their mischievous Enterprize. He mightily arose, and wrought a full Salvation for us. He sent a more furious Storm of Wind and Rain and Hail, than ever - which held to the next Day Noon - which they cou'd not stand before - which so dispersed and broke them, they cou'd never get together again: And several Ships were so crazy, and weakly handed, that 'tis apprehended by our dismissed Captives, who were in the same Storm; that some were overset, some others foundered and sunk in the mighty waters: And the remaining Men of War in View, so shattered and discouraged, that they determined for the West India Islands; and sent their Novia Scotia Pilots home, with Orders to the French and Indian Army who had march'd to Annapolis, to leave their Enterprize and get away. The scattered Remnants, it seems most likely, are gone back to France, abased and confounded.

It is also remarkable, that two French Frigates who privately came to Jebucta in May/June to gather the French and Indians in the neighbouring Countries, and rais'd their mighty expectations; shou'd sail from thence a little before the Fleet's arrival: That the four large Men of War who escap'd Commodore Mitchel at Domingo, and sail'd to Cape Sable Shoar, in Expectation of finding them; but surpriz'd to hear nothing of them, and it growing late in the Year, shou'd sail away but a few Days before the Duke's Arrival, and entirely miss them: That a few Days after the Fleet sail'd, arrived there two more Men of War from France, with absolute Orders to take Annapolis, and not presume to return without it: Being told they were gone for the Purpose, made after them: but arriving thither, and instead of triumphing Fleet and Army, the Menis Pilots returning with the dreadful Tydings, and our Man of War there going to attack them; confounded also, they hastened away.

Thus, on our solemn Day of General Prayer, we expressly cried to the LORD, as in Psal. lxviii. 1, 2 `Let GOD arise, let his Enemies be scattered, let them that hate him flee before him: As Smoak is driven away, so drive thou them away: As Wax melteth before the Fire, so let the [inveterate] Wicked perish at the Presence of GOD!' - When notwithstanding all the Displays of his Anger against them, he see them set upon Mischief: - `And when he looked, and there was none to help us, and he wondered there was none to uphold us: - Then his own Arm bro't Salvation to us, and his Fury upheld him: He trode down our Enemies in his Anger, he made them drunk in his Fury, and he brought down their Strength to the Earth. Terrors took hold on them as Waters: A Tempest bore them away in the Night: The East Wind carried them away, and they departed: And with a Storm he hurled them out of their Place.

`The Sorrows of Death encompassed us, and the Floods of ungodly Men made us afraid: In our Distress we called upon the LORD, and cried to our GOD: He heard our Voice out of his Temple, and our Cry came before him, even into his Ears. Then, he bowed the Heavens and came down, and Darkness was under his Feet: He rode on a Cherub, and did fly; yea, he did fly on the wings of the Wind: He made Darkness his secret Place; his Pavilion round about him were dark Waters and thick Clouds of the Skies: Yea, he sent out his Arrows and scattered them: Then the Channels of Waters were seen, and the Foundations of the World were discovered; at thy Rebuke O LORD, at the Blast of the Breath of thy Nostrils!

`Before him went the Pestilence, and burning Coals of Diseases went forth at his Feet: He stood and measured the Earth; he beheld and drove asunder the Nations. I saw the Tents of Cushan in Affliction, and the Curtains of the Land of Midian did tremble. Was thy Wrath against the Sea, that thou didst ride upon thy Horses? But thy Chariots were Salvation! The Mountains saw thee and they trembled: The overflowing of the Water passed by: The Deep uttered his Voice, and lift up his Hands on high! Thou wentest forth for the Salvation of thy People: thou woundedst the Head out of the House of the Wicked: They came out as a Whirlwind to scatter us: Their Rejoicing was to devour the Poor: Thou didst walk through the Sea with thine Horses, thro' the Heap of great Waters! When we heard, our Belly trembled, our Lips quivered at the Noise, Rottenness entred into our Bones; and we trembled in ourselves, that we might rest in the Day of Trouble, when they were coming to the People, to invade us with their Troops.

The French Officers told one of our Masters - that when they came from Rochfort, they were ninety seven Sail, thirty of which were Men of War: That they had forty thousand Arms, with proportionable Ammunition and Blankets for the Indians; and the Master saw above a hundred Chests of Arms with a great Quantity of Lead landed out of one Ship of thirty Guns which took him: That there were seven thousand North American French & Indians to join them: That upon their taking Annapolis, they expected eighteen French Ships of the Line & twenty two Spanish Men of War wou'd be sent early in the Spring to join the Fleet on these Coasts; which was a Matter generally believ'd & depended upon among them: that they were resolved to destroy the Frontier Settlements of the English Colonies, and had a great Dependance on getting a strong footing on this Part of the North American Continent.

`But how do the Heathen rage, and the People imagine a vain Thing! The Kings of the Earth set themselves, and the Rulers take Counsel together. He that sits in the Heavens has them in Derision. He disappoints the Devices of the Crafty, so that their Hands cannot perform their Enterprize: He taketh the Wise in their own Craftiness, and the Counsel of the Froward is carried head-long. yea, he speaketh to them in his Wrath, and vexeth them in his fore Displeasure: He breaks them in Pieces as with a Rod of Iron: He dashes them in Pieces like a Potter's Vessel. But he saveth the Poor from the Sword, from their Mouth, and from the Hand of the Mighty. Be wise therefore, O ye Kings: Be instructed ye Judges of the Earth: Serve the LORD with Fear, and rejoice with trembling: Submit to the Son of God; least he be angry, and ye perish: When his Wrath is hindled but a little, blessed are all they that put their Trust in him.

`But we will sing to the LORD; for he hath triumphed gloriously: He hath thrown our Enemies into the Sea. The LORD is our Strength and Song, and he is become our Salvation: He is our GOD, and we will prepare him an Habitation in the highest Room of our Souls; our Fathers GOD, and we will exalt him: The LORD is a Man of War, JEHOVAH is his Name. Our Enemies Hosts he has broke in the Sea: With the Blast of thy Nostrils, the Waters were gathered together; the Floods stood upright as an Heap: Thou didst blow with thy Wind; the Sea covered them, they sank as Lead in the mighty Waters.

`But the LORD is our Light and Strength, our Shield and our Salvation. We will extol thee O GOD! For thou hast lifted us up, and not made our Foes to rejoice over us. In our Time of Trouble, we cried to thee; and thou hast sent from Heaven and saved us from those who would have swallowed us up; thou hast put them to Shame that hated us. Thou hast turned our Mourning into Dancing: Thou hast put off our Sackcloth, and girded us with Gladness; that our Glory may sing Praise to thee, and not be silent: O LORD our GOD! We will give Thanks to Thee, and praise thy Name for ever.

`Yea, we will Praise thee O LORD, among the People: We will sing to thee among the Nations. Be thou exalted O GOD above the Heavens: Let thy Glory be above all the Earth! Sing unto GOD ye Kingdoms of the earth: O sing Praises unto the LORD; to him that rideth upon the Heavens of Heavens; ascribe ye Strength unto him; His Excellency is over Israel, his Strength is in the Clouds. Let the Heavens and Earth praise him, the Seas, and every Thing that moves therein: Let the Sea roar, and the Fulness thereof: Let the Floods clap their Hands: Let the Hills be joyful together before the LORD; for he cometh to judge the Earth; with Righteousness shall he judge the World, and the People with Equity.

The Dark Side of Common Law

The following article is based on the maxim of law, 'optimus interpres rerum usus' or 'usage is the best interpreter of things.'

From the commentary in Broom's Legal Maxims, (1845) page 262, on this maxim of law, we find the following:

"The law merchant, it has been observed, forms a branch of the law of England, and those customs which have been universally and notoriously prevalent amongst merchants, and have been found by experience to be of public use, have been adopted as a part of it, upon a principal of convenience, and for the benefit of trade and commerce; and, when so adopted, it is unnecessary to plead and prove them....where the words used by parties have, by the known usages of trade, by any local custom, or amongst particular classes, acquired a peculiar sense, distinct from the popular sense of the same words, their meaning may be ascertained by reference to that usage or custom."

There are two very important observations to be made on this commentary. First, it states that the law merchant or lex mercatoria, is part of the common law of England, as will be further evidenced in this article. Second, the choice of words one uses when dealing with the current courts or Imperial powers, can either, (1) by a poor choice of words, bring you under the law merchant, and thereby, you become regulated by that law, or, (2) by a wise choice of words, you retain your Christian Liberty under God.

The important phrase to analyze is, "their meaning may be ascertained by reference to that usage or custom." In other words, when a de facto court or agency which exist only to regulate commerce and maintain peace, hears or sees words from you that have a specific meaning in commerce and a different meaning in every day life, they will use the commercial meaning and automatically see you as one of their commercial, regulatable entities.

Examples are words like checks, gain, barter, exchange, interest, income, transportation, resident, district, franchise, employment, carrier, and delivery - to name a few.

Under the Law of War, all commercial activity becomes regulated. When one makes use of these words and other such words in a court or court process, which have a specific meaning in the lex mercatoria, or engage in such activities, one becomes taxable and regulatable. Avoiding these pitfalls becomes obvious, but with diligent study, one can learn the do's and don't's.

When one signs, U.C.C. 1-207, to reserve their rights under the common law, they are reserving their rights in the lex mercatoria, thereby admitting to be in commercial thievery.

The following from 'A New Law Dictionary' by Henry James Holthouse (1847), page 264, makes this quite clear:

Law Merchant (lex mercatoria).
"One of the branches of the unwritten or common law, consists of particular customs, or laws which affect only the inhabitants of particular districts, under which head may be referred the law or custom of merchants (lex mercatoria), which is a particular system of customs used only among one set of the king's subjects, which, however different from the general rules of the common law, is yet engrafted into it, and made a part of it; being allowed for the benefit of trade to be of the utmost validity in all commercial transactions; for it a maxim of law, that 'cuilibet in sua arte credebdum est.' This law of merchants comprehends the laws relating to bills of exchange, mercantile contracts, sale, purchase, and barter of goods, freight, insurance, & c. - 1 Chitty's Bl. 76, n. 9."

If one uses the term 'common law,' it must be qualified, i.e., Christian Common Law (see page twelve), admiralty common law, commercial common law, as the following from the above dictionary, page 112, shows:

Common Law. "These words are used in various senses. The following are amongst the most important; 1st. As designating that branch of the municipal law of England which does not owe its origin to parliamentary enactment, and which, as opposed to the latter, is termed the lex non scripta or unwritten law. 2nd. As designating a particular section or division of the lex non scripta or common law. 3rd. The phrase at common law. These it will now be attempted to explain in the above order. 1st. As designating the lex non scripta or common law. The law of England is composed of acts of parliament or statutes, and the custom of the realm. The custom of the realm consists of those rules and maxims concerning the persons and property of men that have obtained by the tacit assent and usage of the inhabitants of this country, being of the same force with acts of the legislature, the difference between the two being, that with regard to the one, the consent and approbation of the people is signified by their immemorial use and practice, whilst, with regard to the other, their approbation and consent are declared by parliament, to whose acts the people are generally deemed to be virtually parties. The custom of the realm, as above described, from the circumstance of its being the common or ordinary law of the land, as formerly administered between man and man, is denominated the common law of the realm, and under which denomination is comprised all the law of this country, excepting the statute law. The custom of the realm, or common law, as it is termed, includes not only general customs, or such as are common to the whole kingdom, but also the particular customs which prevail in certain parts of the kingdom, as well as those particular customs or peculiar laws that are by custom observed only in certain courts and jurisdictions. So the civil and canon laws, as administered in our ecclesiastical and admiralty courts, having obligation to this kingdom, not upon their own intrinsic authority, but simply by custom, are also regarded as part of the customs of the realm or common law. -- see 1 Reeve's Eng. Law, 1, 2; Hale's Hist. C. L. 1, et seq.; 1 Bl. 64.......... 3rd. The phrase at common law signifies by the common law of the land, independently of the statute law, or without the statute law -- according to the rules or principals of the common law, or custom of the realm, apart altogether from statute or act of parliament."

The following maxim of law says it all: 'Qualitas quae inesse debit, facile praesumitur', or 'A quality which ought to form a part is easily presumed.'

When alluding to the 'common law,' you must signify what jurisdicton or graft you claim, or it will be presumed that you mean the only branch that the court has jurisdiction to hear, which in the current system, is the lex mercatoria.

From 'A Commercial Dictionary of Mercantile Law' (1803) by Joshua Montefiore, the following:

Law Merchant. "A system of customs acknowledged and taken notice of by all commercial nations, and these customs constitute a part of the general law of the land; and being part of that law, their existence cannot be proved by witnesses, but the judges are bound to take notice of them ex officio. These customs are of the highest validity in all commercial transactions."

Further, from 'Bouvier's Law Dictionary,' (1914), page 1882, the following:

Law Merchant..... "In the Middle Ages "the custom of merchants" meant the actual usage of the European commercial world. When it came before the ordinary tribunals, it had to be proved; but in the 18th century the courts took judicial notice of it. The development of the law merchant as part of the common law has continued without ceasing. Evidence of living general usage is still admissible to add new incidents to its contents, provided they do not contradict any rule already received. Pollock, First Book of Jurispr. 282, citing, as to the last statement, L. R. 10 Ex. 337. This application is not confined to merchants, but extends to all persons concerned in any mercantile transaction."

And finally, from 'A Dictionary of Law' (1893) by William C. Anderson, the following:

Law Merchant..... "The law merchant was not made; it grew. Customs have sprung from the necessity and convenience of business and prevailed in duration and extent until they acquired the force of law. This mass of our jurisprudence has thus grown, and will continue to grow, by successive accretions. It is the outcome of time and experience, wiser-law makers, if slower than legislative bodies..... The rules applicable to commercial paper were transplanted into the common law from the law merchant. They had their origin in the customs and course of business of merchants and bankers, and are now recognized by the courts because they are demanded by the wants and convenience, of the mercantile world, see Paper, 4."

When using their commercial paper, such as checks, notes, drafts, and bills, you become part of that 'mercantile world,' with all of the baggage attached to you.

A bill includes: a credit card, a bill of sale, a bank-bill, a due-bill, a bill rendered, a bill of exchange, a bill of lading, a stock or bond, etc.

It is suggested that you study on your own, with your children, the implications of these commercial instruments in your life.

Other commercial fictions that permeate Our lives, due to the quest for 'convenience', 'luxury' and 'keeping up with the Jones', and render Us regulatable and taxable by the current 'mercantile world' government are: craftsman, market, factory, business, commodity, debt, rebate, passport, accountant, affidavit, obligation, notary public, address, licence and; debtor, realtor, customer, trader, farmer, printer, employer, employee, addressee and other words with the suffix 'or', 'er' and 'ee'. These denote a fiction of law or a persona designata, in their venue.

God makes it quite clear in Scripture about merchants, when speaking of Ephraim:

'He is a merchant, the balances of deceit are in his hand: he loveth to oppress.' Hosea 12:7
'Ephraim feedeth on wind, and followeth after the east wind: he daily increaseth lies and desolation; and they do make a covenant with the Assyrians, and oil is carried into Egypt.' Hosea 12:1

And, the Word of God at Jeremiah 6:21- 6:31:

"Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not:"
"Fear ye not Me? saith the Lord: will ye not tremble at My presence, which have placed the sand for the bound of the sea by a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass it: and though the waves thereof toss themselves, yet can they not prevail; though they roar, yet can they not pass over it?"
"But this people hath a revolting and a rebellious heart; they are revolted and gone."
"Neither say they in their heart, Let us now fear the Lord our God, that giveth rain, both the former and the latter, in His season: He reserveth unto us the appointed weeks of the harvest."
"Your iniquities have turned away these things, and your sins have withholden good things from you."
"For among My people are found wicked men: they lay wait, as he that setteth snares; they set a trap, they catch men."
"As a cage is full of birds, so are their houses full of deceit: therefore they are become great, and waxen rich."
"They are waxen fat, they shine: yea, they overpass the deeds of the wicked: they judge not the cause, the cause of the fatherless, yet they prosper; and the right of the needy do they not judge."
"Shall I not visit for these things? saith theLord: Shall not My soul be avenged on such a nation as this?"
"A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land;"
"And prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and My people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?"

The merchants of the earth, through their 'common law,' rule the 'day' with their governments and courts by means of the support of 'consumers' and 'customers,' but not eternity.

The Christians not of this world, through their 'Christian Common Law,' can once again, as in the past, take dominion, to wit:

"In the time when thou shalt be broken by the seas in the depths of the waters, thy merchandise and all thy company in the midst of thee shall fall," Ezekiel 27:34, and,
"And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more:" Revelation 18:11.

Commerce is not the way, is not the truth, is not the life, and is always accompanied with war. As in Greek and Roman mythology, Mercury (the god of merchants and thieves) and Mars (the god of war) walk side by side.

He who walks with Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, (Who is The Way, The Truth, The Life, and The Prince of Peace), walks with no other.

Political law ceases upon military occupation. The U. S. Constitution, and commercial law along with all of its codes, rules and regulations are political law, and become arbitrary and capricious, as 'necessity' and 'public policy' dictates, during occupation -- the Christian Common Law is political, but of a different jurisdiction, having access to the Asylum state.

The Asylum state

The following article is dedicated to all of The King's Men across America who have contributed their knowledge and research on this subject and to all of The King's Men who have paid the price in the military style jails and prisons by Standing and Walking with Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The word 'asylum' is the Latin form of the Greek word 'asylon', which literally means something not subject to seizure or freedom from seizure.

Right of asylum; in modern usage, the right of one state to receive, shelter, and protect those accused of offenses in another.

Asylum, n. [L. asylum; Gr. asylom, an asylum, from a priv., and syle, right of seizure.]
"1. Formerly, a sanctuary or inviolable place of protection, as a church, where criminals and debtors sheltered themselves from capture and punishment, and from which they could not be forcibly taken without sacrilege. Temples and altars were anciently considered asylums, as were tombs, statues of the gods, and monuments. 2. Any place of retreat and security. 3. An institution for the protection or relief of unfortunate, afflicted, destitute, or defective persons; as, an asylum for the poor, for the insane, for orphans, or for the aged. 4. The protection given by a sanctuary or refuge."
"Syn.--refuge, retreat, sanctuary, shelter." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969), pp. 116-117.
Asylum. 'A refuge.' Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), page 274.
Asylum. 'A sanctuary, or place of refuge and protection, where criminals and debtors found shelter, and from which they could not be taken without sacrilege." Cromie vs. Institution of Mercy, 3 Bush (Ky.) 391.

With the word "asylum" being synonymous with 'refuge,' 'sanctuary,' 'retreat' and 'shelter,' and the Scripture being replete with these synonyms when referring to the Coverture of God, We will look at these synonymous terms to better appreciate the Covering of God. This is important because every Good and Lawful Christian Man is a priest after the same order as Christ, "made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec." Heb 6:20.

Refuge, n. [Fr. from L. refugium, a refuge, from refugere, to retreat; re-, back, and fugere, to flee.] 1. Shelter or protection from danger or distress. 2. A person or thing that gives shelter, help, or comfort. 3. A place of safety; a shelter; a safe retreat; a stronghold which protects by its strength, or a sanctuary which secures safety by its sacredness; any place inaccessible to an enemy or evil; an asylum. 4. Action taken to escape consequences; an expedient to secure protection or defense; a resort; a shift; a subterfuge.
"Cities of refuge; among the Israelites, certain cities appointed to secure the safety of such persons as might commit homicide without design. Of these there were three on each side of the Jordan.
"Harbors of refuge; harbors or ports which afford shelter to vessels in stormy weather; places of refuge for merchant vessels from the cruisers of an enemy in time of war.
"House of refuge; an institution affording shelter to the destitute or homeless." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969), p. 1519.
Refuge, n. [Fr. refugee.]
1. One who flees to a shelter or place of safety.
2. One who in times of war, political or religious persecution, etc. flees to a foreign power or country for safety; as, the French refugees who left France after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes and settled in Flanders and America."
Refugee, v.i. To seek refuge." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969), p. 1519.
Sanctuary, n.; pl. sanctuaries, [Fr. sanctuaire; LL. sanctuarium, a sacred place, shrine, from L. sanctus, sacred.]
"1. A holy place; a building or place set aside for worship of a god or gods; specifically, (a) the Temple at Jerusalem; (b) a Christian church; (c) any church or temple; (d) a particularly holy place within a church or temple, as the part around the altar, the holy of holies in the Jewish Temple, etc.
"2. A place of refuge or protection; originally fugitives from justice were immune from arrest in churches or other sacred places.
"3. Refuge or protection; immunity from punishment or the law, as by taking refuge in a church, etc.
"4. A reservation where animals or birds are sheltered for breeding purposes and may not be hunted or otherwise molested." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969), p. 1603.
"SHELTER, n. [altered from ME. sheltrum, a bodyguard, squadron, from AS. sceld-truma, shield troop.]
"1. Something that covers, protects, or defends; protection, or place affording protection, as from the elements, danger, etc., a place of refuge.
"2. The state of being covered, protected, or defended; protection; refuge."
"SHELTER, v. t.; sheltered, pl., pp.; sheltering, ppr.
"1. To cover from violence, injury, annoyance, or attack; as, the valley is sheltered from the north wind by a mountain.
"2. To defend; to protect from danger; to secure or render safe; to harbor.
"3. To betake to coveror to a safe place; used with a reflexive pronoun; as, they sheltered themselves under a rock."
"SHELTER, v. i. To take shelter; to find protection or refuge." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969), p. 1672.
SANCTUARY. 1. "Exemption of a place, consecrated to religious duties, from criminal arrests. 2. A place where process of law cannot be executed." A Dictionary of Law, by William C. Anderson (1893), page 919.

One of the duties of the Levitical priesthood was that they were to never leave the sanctuary of God:

"Neither shall he go out of the sanctuary, nor profane the sanctuary of his God; for the crown of the anointing oil of his God is upon him: I am the LORD." Lev 21:12.

The same duty devolves upon all Good and Lawful Christians--never leave the sanctuary which Christ has given each of Us. He entered the Holy of Holies and through Him We have access.

Do codes, rules and regulations, constitutions or any other 'human law' offer such refuge to a Good and Lawful Christian Man or Woman? Does the Uniform Commercial Code or Title 42 lawsuits offer any asylum or remedy to Us? The answer from Psalms is clearly, No, and the courts quite agree!!

"The 'law merchant' is part of the common law of England, and as such is adopted by our Constitution as our law also. Indeed, it is the law of the whole mercantile world [not Christendom]. It is to be taken notice of by the judges as such, and to be understood and declared by them in the same way as all other parts of the law are to be interpreted and declared. When it becomes a question what the law merchant is in any particular case in forensic discussion, the question must be answered by the judges, and not by the jury [which consents or not to asylum for the defendant]; for this law merchant cannot, no more than any other part of the common law, be proved before a jury by witnesses as a matter of fact, and so be subjected to them to determine what it is. Ferris v. Saxton, 4 N.J.L.(1 Southard) 1, 18." Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition, vol. 24A, p. 99.

Therefore, questions involving any thing under the cognizance of the "law merchant" can not be presented to the jury, which has the power to give asylum.

But God's Law is different:

"He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.
I will say of the Lord, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in Him will I trust." Ps. 91:1,2
"In God is my salvation and my glory: the rock of my strength, and my refuge, is in God.
Trust in Him at all times; ye people, pour out your heart before Him: God is a refuge for us. Selah." Psalm 62:7,8.
"I looked to my right hand, and beheld, but there was no man that would know me: refuge failed me; no man cared for my soul.
I cried unto Thee, O Lord: I said, Thou art my refuge and my portion in the land of the living.
Attend unto my cry; for I am brought very low: deliver me from my persecutors; for they are stronger than I." Psalm 142:4-6
"Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with Thee, which frameth mischief by a law?
They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood.
But the Lord is my defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge.
And He shall bring upon them their own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own wickedness; yea, the Lord our God shall cut them off."Psalm 94:20-23
Hear my cry O God; attend unto my prayer.
From the end of the earth will I cry unto Thee, when my heart is overwhelmed: lead me to the rock that is higher than I.
For Thou hast been a shelter for me, and a strong tower from the enemy.
I will abide in Thy tabernacle for ever: I will trust in the cover of Thy wings. Selah.
Psalm 61:1-4

When it comes to the "asylum state" there is only one "asylum state"--Christendom.

In International Law, there is the 'asylum State' for human beings. This State is arbitrary and capricious in it's granting of 'the privilege.'

We know of 'human' organizations around the various States which promote the notion that the "natural law," "commercial law," "corporate law" or " Constitutional law" offer some sort of "asylum." [Ed Note: Please note that "the law of nature" is not "natural law." See Wightman v. Wightman, 4 Johns.Ch. 343, 349.]

These are followers or descendants of Nimrod, the hunter of human offal--which in the hunter's eyes, is today's modern Christian.

The basic maxims in all of the above forms of law are:

One, "Might makes right";
Two, "The law of the jungle is the law of the land";
Three, "Every man has his price";
Four, "Deceit is legal" and,
Five, "The law is what comes out of the judge's mouth."

The above is contrary to Scripture and the Law of the Land of Christendom.

Remember, Nimrod founded the first walled city, which was named for confusion, Babel--Babylon. And it is this law these "nice persons" espouse, because in Babylon everything un-Godly and un-Lawful is "legal," by fiat or decree, regardless of what it costs You in terms of your Life and Liberty and most importantly, your labor denominated in terms of "money."

None of these 'nice shicers' have ever bothered to read or know the Truth, or for that matter their own mythology:

"MERCURIUS, I, m. The son of Jupiter and Maia, the messenger of the gods; as a herald. The god of eloquence; the god of traders and thieves; the presider over roads; conductor of departed souls to the Lower World; setlla Mercuri, Cic.; Mercurialis, e, adj.; Mercuriales, ium, m. pl. A corporation of traders at Rome." Chambers Murray, Latin-English Dictionary (1933), p. 432 [Emphasis added.]; and,
"HERMES. The Greek deity regarded as equivalent to the Roman Mercury, the messenger of the gods, the inventor of the lyre (which he resigned to Apollo), the god of commerce, and also of fraud and cunning. He is generally represented with small wings attached to his head and ankles, and with a winged rod--the caduceus." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969), Appendix, p. 63. [Emphasis added.]

Does all that sound very peaceful? Do those forms of law give you the greatest Tranquility and Preservation? Clearly the answer is a resounding "no." From the above, the true character of these shysters is obvious.

"Malum hominum est obviandum--The malicious plans of men must be avoided." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2144.

These 'forms of law' serve these shysters well, for it is this "law" which licenses them to hunt you down for your money, so you can be at the mercy of the gods they serve! You have been warned!

Remedies in Law or True Asylum, are aids to giving relief from the arbitrary, capricious, fickle, and malicious character of natural or secular man. True asylum is found in the following Maxims of Law:

"Le ley de Dieu et ley de terre sont tout un, et l'un et l'autre preferre et favour le common et publique bien del terre--The law of God and the law of the land are all one; and both preserve and favor the common good of the land." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2142.
"Interest reipublicae quod homines conserventur--It concerns the commonwealth [state] that men be preserved." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914) "Maxim," p. 2139.

There simply cannot be another "asylum state" simply because: there is no other Prince of Peace. See Is 9:6. What law do these shysters show for asylum? Codes, rules, regulations, edicts, proclamations, and the like, all based in commerce. Can you find the Prince of Peace in any of them? If you cannot find Christ in any of those "forms of law," and you are a Good and Lawful Christian Man or Woman, why are you looking there for His Peace? Christ is not found there and He testifies to this on the record:

"Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me." Jn 14:30.

In other words, Christ was not declared nor defined by the Roman codes then existing. All the statutory freaks and gurus with their 'common law trusts,' and 'Title 42 and commercial lien businesses,' all of them knaves and pietatus simulators, are those We all were warned about:

"Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not." Mt 24:23.

These vermin of humanity are those who ignore the sanctity of God's asylum and attempt to hinder Christians from entering therein by standing on God's Law. "Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence My sanctuary: I am the LORD." Lev 19:30, 26:2. Christ alluded to the incident recorded in 2 Chr 24:17-21. It was the princes, i.e. lawyers, of Judah who profaned the asylum which Zechariah sought after testifying against them. In the account, notice where his stoning took place. Now looking at Christ's testimony recorded in Luke:

"Then answered one of the lawyers, and said unto Him, Master, thus saying Thou reproachest us also. And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! For ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers. Woe unto you! For ye build the sepulchers of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchers. Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zechariah, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say say unto you, It shall be required of this generation. Woe unto you, lawyers! For ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered." Lk 11:45-52.

Christ declares who profaned the asylum of God--lawyers! To which the maxims of Law agree:

"Multitudo imperitorum perdit curiam--A multitude of ignorant practitioners destroys a court." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2146.
"What further need have We of witnesses? Behold now, you have heard the testimony of the best Witnesses against the blasphemy of these shicers." See Num 35:30; De 17:6, 19:15.

Christ is the Prince of Peace which is what We seek in the "asylum state." The Prince of Peace is not found in any of those places, so there could not be any True asylum in any of those places. Do not patronize these shysters and thieves, for without their repentance, there is no place for them in Christendom. When You stand on Christian Law in front of the magistrate, as outlined in "In Vinculis" (see Issue the Eighth), you maintain your access to the asylum God offers:

"CHRISTENDOM, n. [ME. cristendom; AS. cristendom, Christianity, from Cristen, Christian, and dom, domain, jurisdiction, from dom, to do.]
"1. Christianity. [Obs.]
"2. The territories, countries, or regions chiefly inhabited by those who profess to the Christian religion.
"3. Christians collectively.
"4. Baptism; christening. [Obs.]" Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969), p. 321.

It is the first three definitions which primarily concern Us, because these three definitions, when combined, form a "common wealth" or "state," a political society occupying a fixed territory:

"By the word State (spelled with a capital) is meant one of the States of the American Union. Spelled otherwise [with a small "s"], it refers to political societies or states in general." Robinson's Elementary Law (1882), note, p. xxxiv. [Emphasis and insertion added.];
"Among quasi-corporations may be ranked counties, and also towns, townships, parishes, hundreds, and other political divisions of counties, which are established without an express charter of [legislative] incorporation;." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Quasi Corporation," p. 2781.

And it is the latter "common wealth," "republic," or "state" which constitutes the "asylum state" under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, simply because it looks to Christ for its formation found in Scripture at 16:16-19. Other names for a "state" are:

"COMMON WEAL, COMMONWEAL. The body politic, state, community XIV; the general good, public welfare XV. orig. and properly two words, rendering L. res communis; cf. weal public (XV) rep. L. bonum publicum, F. le bien publique. See WEAL.
In the sense of 'state' in XVI more esp. Sc., and now archaic or rhetorical." Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966), "Addenda," p. 1025. [Emphasis added.]
"COMMONWEALTH. Public welfare XV; the body politic, state, community; in spec. fig. and trasf. Uses, e.g. c. of Christendom, of learning, of nations XVI; republic, or democratic state; spec. (hist.) The republican government established under Oliver Cromwell XVII. See WEALTH. Both common weal and common wealth were at first used indiscriminately in the senses 'public welfare' and 'body politic' but in XVI commonwealth became the ordinary Eng. term for the latter sense, whence the latter sense 'republic' was developed." Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966), "Addenda," p. 1025.
"WEAL. wil wealth, riches; welfare OE.; the public good xv. OE. wela=OS. welo, (cf. OHG. wela, wola adv.) :- Wgerm. welon, f. wel-; see WELL. In the sense of w. public (xv) rendering L. bonum publicum, F. le bien publique, COMMONWEAL (L. res communis or publica, F. le bien commun)." Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966), p. 996.

The wealth in common is the common Rights vested by Almighty God in all Good and Lawful Christian Men which constitutes their Inheritance, thus giving them the greatest prosperity. God's Law gives the greatest Prosperity, the greatest Liberty, and supports Life. It does not include any thing in equity or in commerce:

"The very purpose of equity was to humanize the common law by modifying or removing its unconscionable burdens." Strauss v. Strauss (1941), 3 So.2d 727;
"UNALIENABLE. The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold. 2. Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable.The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1859), Vol. II, p. 610.

The whole problem with equity and its fruits is that is not common, except among humans and corporations, both strangers to Good and Lawful Christians. And God warned and chastised the Israelites for doing the same to His Word, in Isaiah 55, beginning at verse 6:

"Seek ye the LORD while He may be found, call ye upon Him while He is near; Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and He will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon."

Further, God draws the distinction between His Righteous Ways and the ways of humans, beginning at verse 8:

"For My thoughts [to do Good] are not your thoughts [to do evil], neither are your ways [written in codes, rules, and regulations] My ways [lex non scripta written on the heart of My People], saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts." (insertions added)

Clearly God's Law is not man's law. And God protects His Law by burdening it heavily so as not to make it available to those who have no discernment. Satan can try to mimic God's Asylum, but he really cannot, because he is under God's Judgment. Equity cannot provide True Asylum, and, in fact, can only destroy the Asylum of God's community:

"These rights can be destroyed only by destroying the [Christian] communities which have inherited them. To destroy communities for the enjoyment of their inherent rights, is a crime of nameless atrocity." Judge Henry Clay Dean (1868). [Emphasis added.]

Christian community is common unity based on God's Law for the Glory of God. Christian community was destroyed during the years of Lincoln's War with Good and Lawful Christians by the lawless firm of A. Lincoln and Associates, Inc. The reason for the whole affair during this period in our history was a religious war to destroy Christendom, the territory of Christianity, on the land occupied by Christians. Constitutions did nothing to establish these states, for the community was Christian People, occupying a fixed territory, with Christianity being their Law. This existed prior to the creation of constitutions and is admitted:

"What is a constitution, and what are its objects? It is easier to tell what it is not than what it is. It is not the beginning of a community, nor the origin of private rights; it is not the fountain of law..." Hamilton v. St. Louis County Court, 15 Mo. 13, per Bates, arguendo. [Emphasis added.] And see Matter of Oliver Lee & Co.'s Bank, 21 N.Y. 9.

Those Christians who still cling to things like "The Citizen's Rule Book" are clinging to the wrong law. It is not within man to make law greater than himself, because it is a legal impossibility:

"The law of nature is 'those fit and just rules of conduct which the Creator has prescribed to man as a dependent [upon God] and social being, and which are to be ascertained from the the deductions of right reason, though they may be more precisely known and more explicitly declared by divine revelation.' Wightman v. Wightman, N.Y., 4 Johns.Ch. 343, 349." Words and Phrases, vol. 24A, Permanent Edition, p. 102. [Emphasis and insertion added.]

The "asylum state" question is political--a "matter of state"--which brings up many things, not the least of which it essentially ties a tribunal's hands when certain facts are known to the court:

"ACT OF STATE.--This class of matters for exclusive determination covers, and in the main coincides with, what is called 'matter of state': see W. Harrison Moore, Act of State in English Law, London and New York, 1906. The courts refuse to adjudicate such matters, or to look behind the determinations reached as to them by the executive, because of their essentially 'political' nature. Other questions of this sort besides those mentioned in the text are whether territory belongs to one sovereign or another (Foster v. Neilson, 2 Peters 253; Williams v. Suffolk Insurance Co., 13 Peters, 415; In re Cooper, 143 U.S. 474); whether given territory is or is not hostile (Blackburn v. Thompson, 3 Campbell 61); whether a foreign government is duly recognized (United States v. Palmer, 3 Wheaton 610); When in a case coming before a court the defendant establishes that the question at issue is properly a 'matter of state,' the court will give judgment in his favor without going into the merits (Buron v. Denman, 2 Exchequer 167; cf. Mitchell v. Clark, 110 U.S. 633). Whether the courts will look behind the determination of the executive as to the existence of a state of war is a question on which there is some confusion. It would seem that they will not (Prize Cases, 2 Black 665); but they will examine the question whether or not a state of actual war exists in a given territory at a given time (Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 1; Ex parte Marais (1902), A.C. 109; Moore, op. cit.)." Dickinson, Administrative Justice and the Supremacy of Law in the United States (1927), fn. 47, pp. 26-27. [Emphasis added.]

Thus, the issue is whether Christendom is a recognized Government, which can give asylum. The answer is found in Scripture:

"Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." Epistle of Brother James, 2:19.

Clearly, if the god of the other venue trembles at the God of Christ's Venue, there is recognition enough. Need We say any more about setting communities on Christianity?

The Foundation of America

The following are excerpts from The Compact, Charter, and Laws of The Colony of New Plymouth and The Articles of Confederation of The United Colonies of New England, begun in 1620. They are from a book published in 1836 for the state of Massachusetts.

The Great Patent of New England

Charter of The Council established at Plymouth, in the county of Devon, for the planting, ruling, ordering and governing of New England in America, signed November 3rd, 1620, eight days before The Mayflower Compact.

JAMES, by the grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, & c.

To all whom these presents shall come, greeting:--Whereas, upon the humble petition of divers of our well disposed subjects, that intended to make several plantations in the parts of America, between the degrees of thirtyfour and fortyfive, We, according to our princely inclination, favoring much their worthy disposition. in hope thereby to advance the enlargement of the christian religion, to the glory of God Almighty, as also by that means to stretch out the bounds of our dominions, and to replenish those deserts with people, governed by laws and magistrates.......

And forasmuch as we have been certainlygiven to understand, by divers of our good subjects, that have, for these many years past, frequented those coasts and territories between the degrees of forty and fortyeight, that there is no other the subjects of any christian king or state, by any authority from their sovereign lords or princes, actually in possession of any of the said lands or precincts, whereby any right, claim, interest, or title, may, might, or ought, by that means accrue, belong, or appertain unto them, or any of them.

And also, for that we have been further given certain to know, that within these late years, there hath, by God's visitation, reigned a wonderful plague, together with many horrible slaughters and murders, committed amongst the savages and British people there heretofore inhabiting, in a manner to the utter destruction, devastation, and depopulation of that whole territory, so as there is not left, for many leagues together, in a manner, any that do claim or challange any kind of interest therein, nor any superior lord or sovereign, to make claim thereunto, whereby we, in our judgment, are persuaded and satisfied, that the appointed time is come in which Almighty God, in his great goodness and bounty towards us, and our people, hath thought fit and determined, that those large and goodly territories, deserted as it were by their natural inhabitants, should be possessed and enjoyed by such of our subjects and people, as heretofore have, and hereafter shall, by his mercy and favor, and by his powerful arm, be directed and conducted thither; in the contemplation and serious consideration whereof, we have thought it fit, according to our kingly duty, so much as in us lieth, to second and follow God's sacred will, rendering reverend thanks to his Divine Majesty, for his gracious favor in laying open and revealing the same unto us, before any other christian prince or state; by which means, without offence, and, as we trust, to his glory, we may with boldness go on to the settling of so hopeful a work, which tendeth to the reducing and conversion of such savages as remain wandering in desolation and distress, to civil society and christian religion, to the enlargement of our own dominions, and the advancement of the fortunes of such of our subjects as shall willingly interest themselves in the said employment, to whom we cannot but give singular commendation for their so worthy intention and enterprise.

We, therefore, of our special grace, mere motion, and certain knowledge, by the advice of the lords and others of our privy council, have, for us, our heirs, and successors, granted, ordained, and established, and, in and by these presents, do, for us, our heirs, and successors, grant, ordain, and establish, that all that circuit, continent, precincts, and limits, in America, lying and being in breadth from forty degrees of northerly latitude, and in length by all the breadth aforesaid, thoughout the main land, from sea to sea, with all the seas, rivers, islands, creeks, inlets, ports, and havens, within the degrees, precincts, and limits of the said latitude and longitude, shall be the limits, and bounds, and precincts of the second colony.

And to the end that the said territories may forever hereafter be more particularly and certainly known and distinguished, our will and pleasure is, that the same shall, from henceforth, be nominated, termed, and called by the name of New England, in America, and by that name of New England, in America, the said circuit, precinct, limit, continent, islands, and places in America aforesaid, we do, by these presents, for us, our heirs, and successors, name, call, erect, found, and establish, and by that name to have continuance forever.

And lastly, because the principal effect which we can desire, or expect of this action, is the conversion of, and reduction of the people in those parts, unto the true worship of God and christian religion, in which respect we would be loath that any person should be permitted to pass, that we suspected to effect the superstition of the church of Rome, we do hereby declare, that it is our will and pleasure, that none be permitted to pass in any voyage, from time to time to be made into the said country, but such as shall first have taken the oath of supremacy; for which purpose, we do, by these presents, give full power and authority to the president of the said council, to tender and exhibit the said oath to all such persons as shall, at any time, be sent and employed in the said voyage.

Articles of Confederation

between the Plantations under the Government of the Massachusetts, the Plantations under the Government of New-Plymouth, the Plantations under the Government of Connecticut and the Government of New Haven with the Plantations in Combination therewith,

signed August 29th, 1643

Whereas wee all came into these parts of America with one and the same end and ayme namely to advance the Kingdome of our Lord Jesus Christ and to enjoy the liberties of the Gospell in puritie with peace. And whereas in our settleinge (by a wise Providence of God) we are further dispersed upon the Sea Coasts and Rivers then was first intended, so that we can not according to our desire with convenience in one Government and Jurisdiction: And whereas we live encompassed people of several Nations and strange languages which hereafter may prove injurious to us, or our posteritie. And forasmuch as the Natives have formally committed sondry insolences and outrages upon several Plantations of the English and have of late combined themselves against us. And seeing by reason of those sad Distractions in England which they have heard of, and by which they know we are hindered by that humble way of seeking advice, or by reaping those comfortable fruits of protection which at other times we may well expect. We therefore do conceive it our bounden Dutye without delay to enter into a present Consotiation amongst ourselves for mutuall help and strength to all our future concernements: That as in Nation and religion so to other Respects we bee and continue one according to the tenor and true meaneing of the ensuing Articles: Wherefore it is fully agreed and conlcuded by and betweene the parties or Jurisdiceons about named and they joyntly and severally doe by these presents agree and conclude That they all bee and henceforth bee called by the Name of The United Colonies of New-England.

The signers of the Articles were:

John Winthrop, Governor of Massachusetts,
Tho. Dudley, Geo. Fenwick, Thomas Gregson, Theoph. Eaton, Edwa. Hopkins.

Twenty-nine years later, on September 5th, 1672, they created:

Articles of Confederation between the Plantations under the Government of Massachusetts;
The Plantations under the Government of New Plymouth;
and the Plantations under the Government of Connecticut.

The Articles opened with:

"Whereas wee all came into these partes of America with one and the same end and aime, viz. To advance the kingdome of our Lord Jesus Christ; and to Injoy the Liberties of the Gospell in puritie with peace; And whereas in our settleing by a wise providence of God wee are further dispersed upon the sea coasts and Rivers then was first intended; soe that wee cannot according to our desire with conveniencye comunicate in one Government and Jurisdiction; and whereas wee are compassed with people of severall nations and strange languages; which hereafter may prove injurious to us and our posteritie and forasmuch as the natives have formerly commited sundry insolencyes and outrages upon severall Plantations of the English; and have several times combined themselves against us; and seeing by reason of our distance from England (our deare native Countrey) wee are hindred both from that humble way of seeking advice and reaping those comfortable fruites of protection which wee might otherwise well expect; wee therefore accoumpt it our duty as well as saftey To enter into a condeaderation for mutuall healp and succor in all our future concernments; that as in nation and religion; soe in other respects; wee be and continue one; according to the tenure and true meaning of the Insueing articles;"

There followed thereafter several articles to define the nature of the relationship between the English colonies and the document was then signed by sixteen men. In all subsequent official business conducted thereafter, the Christian character of the Colonies was clear and could not be mistaken in its intent.

This was true not only in the articles of confederation between the various colonies, but also in their court documents and in their correspondence between each other, and in their letters or other official communiques to the King in England.

Thus, the opening of :

The Act of Surrender of the Great Charter of New England to his Majesty ...

Dated on the 7th day of June, 1635, the heading of the Act read as follows:

"To all Christian People to whom this present Writing shall come;"

Note, they were not sending the Writing to just anyone, but specifically addressed it to 'all Christian People'.

Even their treaties with the indians bore the marks of their Christianity.

Thus, when King Phillip, chief of the local indian tribes waged war against the colonists, without provocation, and had murdered many men, women, and children, burned many homes and other buildings, all at the instigation of the French, the colonists displayed great Christian compassion by not exacting the death of the indian leaders once they had beaten down the uprising.

The treaty itself reads like a document of great Christian restraint and was signed with a mark by all the chiefs under King Phillip on September 29th, 1671.

In Vinculis

The accuser will squirm and try everything under the sun to get you to move. Do not move, flinch, open your mouth, or any thing else. You are in the furnace with Shadrach, Meschech and Abednego, and if God would not allow their hair to singe, Yours won't either, provided, you have maintained your Self in His loving Care: "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." Mt 3:11-12.

"IN VINCULIS. In chains; in actual custody." Gilb. For. Rom. 97
"Applied also, figuratively, to the condition of a person who is compelled to submit to terms which oppression and his necessities impose on him." 1 Story, Eq. Jur. 302. Bouvier s Law Dictionary (1914), p. 1525.

Many questions have arrived over the phone as to what to do and say when you are taken involuntarily before the magistrate. We hesitate to give any advice in this regard, but we also realize that many of Our Brothers in Christ need the meat of the Word to help them stand, after having done all else. What follows is merely suggestions with an explanation of the foundation in Law. Do not use any of this material if you have not stood on Christian Law, have done any act which is not condoned by Christian Law, do not know enough Christian Law to make such a stand, just want a quick fix, or for any commercial activity.

This is not a silver bullet, and the risks are high. We do not know every situation, nor do We know every kind of person you will encounter. We believe God has called You for His Service, however; and, We Wish to be in accord with the Word and in agreement with Your Righteous Cause for the Glory of Our Father, for it is written, 'Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? And one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows. Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.' Mt 10:29-33.

Absolutely none of what you read here can be applied by attorneys, therefore, do not hire one of Satan's servants, not even a christian one:

"Attorneys are officers of the court, and answerable to it [not God] for the proper performance of their professional duties." Clark v. Willett (1868), 35 C. 534 [Insertion added.]; and,
"First [primus] the attorney is an officer of the court, and both his legal duties and authority may be modified either expanded or contracted by legal and ethical rules regulating the practice of the law." Witkin California Procedure, 41, p. 49. [Insertion added.]

In other words, he is regulated by the lawless one, Satan himself.

Next, if You use or have used an attorney, You lose or have lost your Christian Character:

"Once an attorney has represented a client in court, the client is barred from appearing in propria persona." Knox & Crawford v. Thomas (1806), (D.C.) 7 U.S. 649.

"Propria persona" is a nebulous term and is defined by the law in whose image and likeness it is created. In other words, it depends on the Law you use to describe your Self. Thus, if you relied or rely on codes, rules, regulations, edicts, proclamations, fiats, decrees and the like, to describe your self, your proper person is a God-less entity. When you hire the attorney, you hire the law that creates and regulates him, and claim you are lawless. This is the reason why,

"Individuals [Christians] rely for protection of their rights on [Christian] law, and not upon regulations and proclamations of departments of government, or officers who have been designated to carry laws into effect." Baty v. Sale, 43 Ill. 351. [Insertions added.]

And looking to the maxims of Law,

"Qualitas quae in esse debet, facile praesumitur -- A quality which ought to form a part is easily presumed." Bouvier s Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2156.

If an attorney is forced upon you, dismiss "it" immediately. No court can force you to take an attorney against your consent:

"The right to have counsel does not justify a court in forcing a lawyer upon an accused who does not want one." Moore v. State of Michigan, 355 U.S. 155;
and,
"Invito beneficium non datur -- No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2140.

Do not ever write any of what you read here down on paper to carry with you. The paper has no standing in Law, only You do. You must make it a part of You because if a magistrate sees you reading from a sheet of paper, he will know you are a liar and lawless:

"Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work [in commerce] shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." 1 Cor 3:13-15. [Insertion added.]

The very first thing to do in any situation is to survey the surrounding circumstances in which you find your Self:

"See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil." Ephesians 5:15-16.

This is vitally important. What you are looking for is your Law in the situation. This would be evidenced by a copy of the Bible being conspicuously displayed somewhere on the magistrate's bench.

If You do not see a Bible any where in the situation, then You survey the room for the notice of the purported law of the court, its lex fori. This will be evidenced by the flag(s) displayed in the room. You do not care a whit about the purported "process," judge's oath of office, or any thing in their venue.

Use of the flag. "The most general and appropriate use of the flag is as a symbol of authority and power." The National Encyclopedia (1944), Vol. 4, p. 326. Edited by Henry Suzzallo, Ph.D., Sc.D., LL.D. Published by P. F. Collier and Son Corporation, New York. [Emphasis added.]

In looking at the construction of the flag, we must look to the regulations that create the flag. Generally speaking, the flags will have a gold fringe on them, and this is the nature of the power being exercised. Notice I said "power." I did not say Lawful authority.

"The flag of the United States shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternating red and white; and the union of the flag shall be forty-eight Stars, white in a blue field." 61 Stat. 642, July 30, 1947, ch. 389. 4 U.S.C.A. 1.

This statute describes the flag of the United States. This is a code from a venue separate and distinct from a state court vested with the judicial Power of Christian People. Notice this description says nothing about a "gold fringe."

In the first place, the flag of the United States has no place in a Lawfully constituted state court exercising judicial Power vested by the Christian People in that state. The presence of that flag is notice that the "law" of the President of the United States is somewhere in that court room. The fringe on that flag describes the capacity of the President of the United States, as Commander-in-Chief, in that court room:

"A color is a flag carried by dismounted army units and for high-ranking commanders, such as the president, secretary of defense, and chief of staff. The national color is the flag of the United States born on a pike. It is often made of silk and is trimmed on three sides with a knotted fringe of yellow silk (light blue for quartermaster units.)" Encyclopedia Americana (1966), Vol. 11, p.308. See also 34 Op. Atty.-Gen. 483.

The law in that court is martial law, the law of the Roman god, Mars. That law, is for persons only, 'God-less entities,' not Good and Lawful Men and Women. See 1 Tim 1:8-11. The Law declares "persons" created by men to be un-Godly, because they are made in he image and likeness of their "sovereign." See also Randy Lee's article on 'human beings' in the Christian Jural Society News, issue the Sixth.

In the second place,

"Martial rule is not authorized by any express provision of the Constitution or of a Federal statute of general application, but the legal power and right of the President and of military commanders acting under his authority to exercise martial rule in an appropriate case, are well established and judicially recognized as being derived from necessary implication from various provisions of the Federal Constitution." U.S. Army FM 27-15 (1941), Military Law, Domestic Disturbances.

In other words, God-less shicers are attempting to place the lawless one over the Lawgiver and His People called by His Name. This condition exists only by consent or ignorance, not by Law, and will not be forever:

"Judicial review would never have flourished had the people been opposed to it. They have opposed only its exercise in particular cases, but not the power itself. They have the sovereign Power to abolish it outright or hamstring it by constitutional amendment. The President and Congress could bring the Court to heel even by ordinary legislation. The Court's membership, size, funds, staff, rules of procedure, and enforcement agencies are subject to the control of the political branches. Judicial review, in fact, exists by the tacit consent of the governed." Levy, "Judicial Review, History, and Democracy: An Introduction," in Judicial Review and the Supreme Court, 1, 12 (1967).

"For the rod of the wicked shall not rest upon the lot of the righteous; lest the righteous put forth their hands into iniquity." Ps 125:3.

And this is key to Your situation:

"The agency of the master [magistrate] is devolved upon him by the law of the flag. The same law that confers his authority, ascertains its limits [venue],..." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 1242. [Insertion added.]

Now that you have surveyed the situation, You must import the Law which describes You and separates You from all others: The Scripture. The Reason for this is simple: You want to invoke the Coverture of God:

"And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing [code, rule, regulation]; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." 2 Cor 6:16-18. [Insertion added.]

If you do not do this, you maintain the present state of war and martial law is appropriate to maintain the "peace" in war.

You first will say,

"I am an Good and Lawful Christian Man (or Woman). I do not see My Law, the Scripture, which describes Me, in this court. By My Law, I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth Me. I am a bond servant of My Sovereign Lord Jesus Christ, for I was bought with the price He paid. It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bears witness of my Self, and My Sovereign Lord Jesus Christ, in whom I live and have my Being, bears witness of Me."

In these statements you have imported Your Law and set the bounds of jurisdiction between Yourself and the magistrate. This act sets the lex fori of Your Court, of which You cannot be deprived. See Article thirty four in the Magna Charta (1215), and the Confirmatio Carterum (1297) confirming the Great Charter, and the Abolition of the Star Chamber (1641) in Sources of Our Liberties (1952). Further, it sets up a condition in Law called "impossibility":

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Mt 6:24 and Lk 16:13;
"Lex non cogit ad impossibilia -- The law requires nothing impossible." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), Maxim, p. 2143;
"Impossibilium nulla obligatio est -- There is no obligation to perform impossible things." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), Maxim, p. 2137;
and,
"Impotentia excusat legem -- Impossibility is an excuse in the law." Bouvier s Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2137.

In the case of Women, You now must also declare the tradition, custom, and usage of the Realm, which is Coverture. See Genesis 2:22-24.

"When a principle has been so long practiced and so universally acknowledged as to become a maxim, it is obligatory as part of the Law." Anderson's Law Dictionary (1893), Maxim, p. 666, citing Hendrickson v. Evans (1855), 25 Pa. 444.

If you are a Susan B. Anthony, Betty Friedan, Gloria All Red, or Bella Abzug disciple, and not a disciple of Christ, you stand on your own in the pillory as notice to all others, so they may fear and gain understanding. For single Good and Lawful Christian Women, You declare the tradition, custom, and usage of Coverture; and, ask from the audience, not the magistrate, for any Good and Lawful Christian Man to put You under His personal Protection. This is important because the Good and Lawful Christian Man is bound to Duty by the same Scripture that establishes the custom of Coverture, to protect the seed and Law of the Realm. It is also a dual reflection: One, if no Good and Lawful Christian Man comes forward to protect a Good and Lawful Christian Woman, woe is that political society; and, Two, if no Good and Lawful Christian Man comes forward to protect a woman, then that woman is being chastised for her iniquity against God's Law, as a disciple of Susan B. Anthony, Betty Friedan, or Bella Abzug, instead of Jesus Christ.

For the Good and Lawful Christian Man, the Duty is heavy without Christ, but is lightened considerably when standing on the customs and usages of Christian Law. It is thus very important that Good and Lawful Christians be fully grounded in Scripture and Law. This is not for the light-hearted, those Who are on the milk of the Word, or those who will be 'raptured out' at a moment's notice or within twenty minutes. You must be fully armored:

"tak[ing] unto You the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:........." Ephesians 6:13-17.

Now, the nature of martial law equates to a siege. See in re Ezeta, 62 F. 1002. Also, it is no law at all:

"The term 'martial law' carries no precise meaning and has been employed in various ways by different people and at different times." Duncan v. Kahanamoku, Hawaii, 66 S.Ct. 606, 611, 615, 327 U.S. 304, 90 L.Ed. 688;
so that,
"In truth and reality it is not a law, but something indulged rather than allowed as a law." Hale's Hist. C.L., quoted in Johnson v. Jones (1868), 44 Ill. 142; because 'necessity' is the governing principle.

The maxims state, "Necessitas non habet legem -- Necessity has no law." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2146. So, from the evidence of the flag, and lack of Law, You are engaged in a siege -- Your Christian Law is under assault and siege from the lawless one, Satan, regardless of the "process" used. Therefore, it is extremely important You never use any codes, edicts, proclamations, fiats, decrees, or touch any thing in the opposing venue. This was the mistake of Eve in the Garden: she relied not on the doctrine of Coverture, but on her humanity, and touched something in the opposing venue. And the Good and Lawful Christian Man is to rely on the Coverture of God for engaging the enemy. The Coverture of God is recorded in: Exodus 15:1-19, Psalm 9:9, Psalm 32:7, Psalm 55:22, Psalm 73:26, Psalm 84:2, Psalm 119:81 & 114, Psalm 121, Psalm 124, and others. So he is not ever to touch any thing in the opposing venue, either.

So, starting with the maxims of Law, without Law, there is no fiction of Law:

"Nunquam fictio sine lege -- There is no fiction without law." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2151.

This is very important because this dissolves the process which the accuser has handed the magistrate, provided, You maintain Yourself under Law. You must announce this maxim when they ask You to identify with the nom de guerre on the purported process. We must investigate this word 'identify' to better appreciate what is taking place in this exchange:

IDENTIFY. To ascertain or prove to be the same, agnoscere (to perceive an object to be the same as one we have been acquainted with before): suum esse declarare, dicere, or confirmare (to say that it is one's own property; as in to identify stolen goods). To make or consider the same, aliquid alicui rei in aequo ponere or par facere: exaequare (to equalize; absolutely aliquid cum aliqua re): discrimen tollere or removere (to remove all distinction, with genitive, rerum, &c.): negare quid quam interesse (aliquid ab aliqua re). Riddle, English-Latin Lexicon (1849), p. 388.

So, when the magistrate asks You, "Are you 'so and so'?" or, "Who are you?" he is asking You to: One, prove your self to be the God-less entity sought for surety of the nom de guerre; Two, equalize your self with all other God-less entities, by separating your Self from your Law; and, Three, remove all distinctions between your Self and all God-less entities; thereby proving the validity of the purported process he has before him. Once You confirm, You have made an election, which cannot be recalled:

"Electio semel facta, et placitum testatum, non patitur regressum" -- An election once made, and the intent shown, cannot be recalled." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), Maxim, p. 2132.

You display intent when You answer:

"Acta exteriora indicant interiora secreta -- Outward acts indicate inward intent." Bouvier s Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2124.

So it is important that You announce and pronounce the maxim of Law. If You identify with the nom de guerre -- You hang your Self on the cross for them, and they merely drive the nails!

Remember, their fiction is a fiction of their "purported" law, the lex mercatoria, which is not law, because a convicted felon, who is under judgment, cannot create Law, for he has no Truth and is under Christ's righteous Judgment. See Jn 8:44 and Jn 16:11; and,

"Interest reipublicae res judicatas non rescindi -- It [*2140] concerns the commonwealth that things adjudged be not rescinded." Bouvier s Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," pp. 2139-40.

For the Good and Lawful Christian Man or Woman, because they have the Truth of Christ, and they declare such by their fruits, not just their words, they dissolve the purported fiction of law:

"Fictio juris non est ubi veritas -- Where truth is, fiction of law does not exist." Bouvier s Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2134.

So, We can say in the end the same words Christ used: "But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple." Mt 12:6. In this case, the temple is the temple of Mars because the "law" is martial law, which declares the god of that temple. The one Who is greater is God, Who walks in you, and You are invoking His Covering. You then turn to the opposing party, who are today's Pharisees, and declare that:

"I am found written in the Lamb's Book of Life spelled <spell your Christian appellation according to the customs and usages of proper English Grammar> and not on your purported process. I am Who My Lawgiver says I am. No man can sue at Law in the name of another. You are attempting to deceive Me and the magistrate, by your imposition of your purported process which abuses and disparages Me and blasphemes My Father for it is written, 'And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.' Mt 25:40. And blasphemy is an indictable offense at Law because it not only blasphemes God, but also attempts to destroy the foundation of Law. The Law does not presume that any man is forgetful of his eternal welfare. You are lying to Almighty God, Me, and this magistrate and have thus condemned yourself, for it is written in My Law, 'Accuse not a servant unto his master, lest he curse thee, and thou be found guilty.' Prov 30:10. And until this conflict of Law is resolved, I Wish to be sent to the asylum state of Christendom, which is the least restrictive alternative. Further I sayeth naught, and stand mute.

The conflict is now in and with the accuser; the conflict resolves itself as follows: those who work for these fictional entities must deny their relationship to either one or the other, for "No man can serve two masters." This leaves the accuser with the conflict within himself, and no longer is the conflict with you. He must come to terms with God Himself. If he denies God, he denies his own existence...

"I Am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth, that it may bring forth more fruit." Jn 15:1-2 --

...and worships the creature, his agency, more than his Creator. See Rom. 1:25. If he denies his agency, he denies his "authority to act." The conflict is not favorably resolved either way. This is essentially the same conflict the Pharisees had with Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ when they questioned Him, "By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?" Mt. 21:23. See also Mk 11:27 and Lk 20:2. And he answered them with a question which had two possible solutions, neither of which was favorable to them.

Old Time Justice

The following is a verbatim transcript of sentence imposed on a defendant convicted of murder in a Federal District Court of the Territory of New Mexico by a U.S. Judge, sitting at Taos in an adobe stable used as a temporary courtroom:

"Jose Manuel Miguel Xavier Gonzales, in a few short weeks it will be spring. The snows of winter will flee away, the ice will vanish, and the air will become soft and balmy. In short, Jose Manuel Miguel Xavier Gonzales, the annual miracle of the years will awaken and come to pass, but you won't be there.
The rivulet will run its soaring course to the sea, the timid desert flowers will put forth their tender shoots, the glorious valleys of this imperial domain will blossom as the rose. Still, you won't be here to see.
From every tree top some wild woods songster will carol his mating song, butterflies will sport in the sunshine, the busy bee will hum happy as it pursues its accustomed vocation, the gentle breeze will tease the tassels of the wild grasses, and all nature, Jose Manuel Miguel Xavier Gonzales, will be glad, but you. You won't be here to enjoy it because I command the Sheriff or some other officer of the country to lead you out to some remote spot, swing you by the neck from a knotting bough of some sturdy oak, and let you hang until you are dead.
And then, Jose Manuel Miguel Xavier Gonzales, I further command that such officer or officers retire quickly from your dangling corpse, that vultures may descend from the heavens upon your filthy body until nothing shall remain but bare, bleached bones of a cold-blooded, copper-colored, blood-thirsty, throat-cutting, chili-eating, sheep-herding, murdering son-of-a-bitch." U.S.A. v. Gonzales (1881), U.S. District Court, New Mexico Territory Sessions.

Myths of the 'Patriot Movement'

Part One

by Randy Lee

Over the past ten years, the so-called Patriot Movement has been inundated with countless myths of law, which as a result of 'buying' into them, has cost many Christians their Life, Liberty and Property on a large scale. This is a result, to a large degree, of not looking to The Law of Scripture and Jesus Christ for the answers to Our problems, but putting Our Faith in the 'follies' of natural persons and human beings----known as constitutions, codes, rules and regulations.

These myths include, but are not limited to:

'The Right to Travel,' 'common law courts,' 'getting un-taxed,' 'U.C.C. 1-207,' 'Constitu- tional Rights,' 'state Citizen,' 'sovereign Citizen,' 'Title 42 lawsuits,' 'commercial liens,' 'UBO Trusts,' etc., all of which are secular concepts designed to remove Christendom from their God Given Dominion on the Land, and place them into a commercial jurisdiction controlled by infidels, pagans, secular humanists and others of like kind.

This has, for the most part, come about since Lincoln's War, when the so-called Roman Civil Law was gradually put into place and implemented during Reconstruction. The combination of many different changes in society in general, after this period, changed the leadership and direction of Christendom .

The purpose of this article is not to criticize or judge any Christian or Christians, but to expose, with documentation, the erroneous concepts that have brought many down a painful path. It is my hope and intention to help right these wrongs by sharing all information I have on these subjects with my fellow-Christians. It is suggested, as always, that you do additional research in these areas in order to feel confident that the information herein is totally accurate. By doing so, with all writings and processes by whomever, the mistakes of the past will not be repeated.

The Right to Travel: 'Within the meaning of 'a right to travel', means migration with intent to settle and abide.' Strong v. Collatos, D.C. Mass., 450 F. Supp.1356,1360.
Migrans jura amittat ac privilegia et immunitatates domicilii prioris, or, One who migrates or emigrates will lose the rights, privileges, and immunities of his former domicile. Maxim of Law, Black's Law Dict., 6th Ed., page 992.
'Basic constitutional right exemplified in case of persons applying for welfare assistance in a state in which they have not resided for a prescribed period of time. It is said that to deny such a right to such persons is to inhibit their right to travel and hence to deny them equal protection of the law.' Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S. Ct. 1322.
"Nom de guerre--a war name; an assumed traveling name; a pseudonym." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged (World Publishing Co., 1969), "Dictionary of Foreign Words and Phrases," p. 1202.
"The sovereign authority can extend only over those who are subject to it; it cannot, therefore, regulate the rights of foreigners. But if they come within its territory, either to reside or travel, they are considered as submitting themselves to the authority of the laws of the country, and they are bound by them. This is perfectly reasonable, for during their stay in the country they are protected by its laws." 1 Bouvier's Inst. of Law (1851), p. 38.
"Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergencyfrom, at least, the Civil War...in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency." Preamble from Senate Report 93-549, 93rd Congress, November 19, 1973, Special Committee On The Termination Of The National Emergency United States Senate.

Note: Christians have a God Given Right, 'to exercise their Christian Liberty to move along the common ways." Scripture tells Us that, 'We can do all things in Christ Jesus that strentheneth Us.' When on the road, you should be doing only two things, which are, 'going to church or market.' These two things are for purely spiritual sustenance (edification and preservation of His church and state) and physical sustenance (keeping oneself alive physically). Keeping oneself alive physically does not include worldly desires such a night on the town, disturbing the peace by doing 90 miles an hour because you like 'the thrill of speed,' or you're late for an 'appointment,' etc.

"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him."
"For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world."
"And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever." 1 John 2:15-17

Common Law Courts: There is not and never has been such a thing as a 'common law court.' There are courts of common pleas, courts at common law, courts Christian, but no 'common law court.' It will go down in history as a 'gimmick court,' operating out of necessity (Maxim of Law: Necessity knows no law, therefore these 'courts' are utterly lawless).

Getting un-taxed: First, there is not a word such as 'un-taxed,' that exists in the English Language. This is one more 'gimmick' to sell a $1,000 - $2,000 package to desperate, uninformed victims. When a person engages in commercial activity in America, that person is liable for the tax on it, if there is a record of such activity. Note: only 'persons' engage in commercial activity. This tax is nothing new, to wit:

'The power, in a State, is necessarily limited to subjects within its jurisdiction. These are persons, property, and business,--whatever the form of taxation, whether as duties, imports, excises, or licenses. The power may touch property in every shape: in its natural condition, in its manufactured form, in its transmutations. It may touch business in any of its infinite forms--in professions, commerce, manufactures, transportation. The amount is determined by the value, use, capacity, or productiveness. Unrestrained constitutionally, the power of the State as to the mode, form, and extent is unlimited, provided the subject be within her jurisdiction.' A Dictionary of Law, by William C. Anderson (1893), page 1009, based on numerous court cases.
Note: 'provided the subject be within her jurisdiction,' is limiting, when it comes to the Good and Lawful Christian not engaging in the benefits, privileges and immunities of The State, but instead, living The Law according to Scripture.

U.C.C. 1-207: This 'gimmick' was created by 'the codemakers' in order to appear legitimate. When reserving your 'common law' rights with a commercial code, and commerce and the lex mercatoria being part of the common law of England, you are only reserving what that code has jurisdiction over; commerce. In essence, what you are saying when you sign U.C.C. 1-207 is that you reserve your rights to engage in commercial thievery in their system (see Issue the Eighth, The Dark Side of the Common Law).

The current code system is designed from The Roman Codes of Justinian which were based on The Babylonian Codes of Hamarabi (Note: A plaque of Hamarabi hangs in the House of Representatives in D.C.). The U.C.C. is private law between merchants, codified from the Law Merchant. It is not something a Christian should attach him Self to. It is:

"One of the Uniform Laws drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and The American Law Institute governing commercial transactions (including sales and leasing of goods, transfer of funds, commercial paper, bank deposits and collections, letters of credit, bulk transfers, warehouse receipts, bills of lading, investment securities, and secured transactions). The U.C.C. has been adopted in whole or substantially by all states." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 1531. And it is copyrighted.

Constitutional Rights: Constitutional Rights consist of natural, civil, and political rights. All of these rights are for natural persons, human beings, citizens and subjects of the secular state; not Christians (see Issue the Sixth, To Be or Not To Be: a Human Being). When a Christian clings to constitutional rights instead of reinforcing the Rights Given to Us from God through Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the result is, "Get thee behind Me, Satan: thou art an offence unto Me: for thou savorest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." Mat. 16:23

According to Blackstone,

"The rights of persons considered in their natural capacity, are of two sorts, -- absolute and relative; absolute, which are such as appertain and belong to particular men, merely as individuals or single persons; relative, which are incident to them as members of society, and standing in various relations to each other." 1 Bl. Comm. 123.

If you believe that 'humans' have constitutional rights under the current de facto government, re-read S. R. 93-549.

state Citizen and sovereign Citizen: Again, secular concepts, for persons, designed to subject the Christian to Roman secular law, to wit:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." 14th Amendment, U.S. Constitution.
"Citizen: A member of the civil state entitled to all its privileges." Cooley, Const. Lim. 77.
"Citizen: One of the sovereign people. A constituent member of the sovereignty, synonymous with 'the people'." Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 404. (Note: God is The only Sovereign. Who then, are 'the people'? The U.S. Government, which is a corporation, claims to be sovereign. 'The people,' then, are those with power over their 'human subjects,' who wish to be God walking on earth. Their motto is, 'I can do all things in myself and be perfect').

Title 42 Lawsuits: All U.S. Titles and Codes are for natural persons, corporations, etc. Natural persons are God-less entities presumed to be living in a state of nature (see Issue the Sixth, To Be or Not To Be: a Human Being).

When a Christian files a Title 42 lawsuit in the de facto secular courts, he is saying in essence, "I am one of your pagan followers, and you, as my Master have violated my 'Civil Rights (rights you gave me).' I want revenge, and I want to be judged by the un-Godly, as long as my greed and revenge produce some money for me." Those promoting and using such lawsuits walk arm in arm with Mercury and Mars to wit:

"We are all agreed that the First and Fourteenth Amendments have a secular reach far more penetrating in the conduct of government than merely to forbid an 'established church,' ....We renew our conviction that 'we have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religion." Justice Felix Frankfurter and Co. in Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203.

Commercial Liens: Again, designed by the secular mercantile world for the promotion of revenge, greed and the furtherance of their jurisdiction. Many who have filed these in recent years have landed in jail. Those who are not in jail are still trying to 'monetize' these liens, but to no avail. Such money making 'promotional gimmicks' as, "you can sell them to brokers on the world market," have been found by many to be bogus and fraudulent. The recent Schweitzer/ freeman activity in Montana, California and other States are typical examples of the danger and futility of getting involved with such anti-Christian behavior.

UBO Trusts: Better known as 'common law trusts,' never existed in common law. Just another money making 'gimmick' by commercial promoters. Trusts, like all other instruments that create a commercial fiction, are and have always been repugnant to Christian Common Law and Scripture. The information on trusts being so numerous, I'll try to keep it simple.

-First, a trust carries with it an equitable duty, a benefit (commodity) and limited liability.

-Second, a trust reduces your legal title in property to an equitable title, thereby entering that property into commercial activity. An equitable title cannot be defended in a court-at-law or with a Non-Statutory Abatement.

-Third, when receiving the benefit as the beneficiary of the trust, from the trustee, the beneficiary surrenders a legal right, and joins the secular commercial world on record, to wit:

Trust beneficiary: "A person named in a trust account as one for whom a party to the account is named as trustee." Uniform Probate Code 6-101. "Person for whose benefit property is held in trust." Restatement, Second, Trusts 3.

A 'settlement' is used in Christian Common Law as a trust style document. It is based in substance, not fictions, and is for inheritance purposes, not business. It is a simple document and can be written and published by yourself.

(Continued in Issue the Twenty-fourth)

Research Update on Dr. Schroeder

Article by John William

Note: the following is from Al Adasks' "Anti-Schyster." Thanks and God Bless Al, Debra, and their new baby girl, Alexandra Nicole.

By now, we all know of Dr. Eugene Schroeders' work on Emergency Powers, and the role of such powers in setting aside the Constitution.

What we may not know is, with F.D.R.'s emergency powers came a federal legislation flood that spread a cholera throughout the land from 1932-40. The intent; convert every area of life to "commerce" that can only be done under "commercia belli," i.e., war contracts. Licensing,, permits, fees, and taxes on the newly created commercial venues, were `necessary ' to solve the world banking crisis, that was ALLOWED to develop till the bankers cried out to civil governments (and not to God) to save them.

In September, 1944, as World War II was winding down , one hundred fifty seven (157) nations met at the Breton Woods Monetary Conference in New Hampshire, to realign international monetary policy, i.e., to declare joint bankruptcy.

Since F.D.R. had already amended the "Trading with the Enemy Act" (1917) to make us all "enemies" of the United States, the monopoly game was set and ready to play.

The States, as conquered powers still under the martial rule declared by Lincoln, stood by and watched it all happen without a peep, because of the revenues and power it created for them and their political sub-divisions, i.e., the cities and counties.

If nothing else, Dr. Schroeder's work has made it clear for all those with an ear to hear and an eye to see, just how far we have departed from the God who created us.

As an outline of Dr. Schroeder's on-going research we offer the following.

The list below was sent to Dr. Schroeder by Jeffrey M. Buske and represents acts of the Colorado legislature. Dr. Schroeder asks that anyone who does similar research in their state to send copies of such work to Dr. Schroeder at:

A.A.M.,
P.O. Box 97, Campo, Colorado [81209]

Regular Session: Colorado Legisture, 1933:

HB-30. Administration of the State Government. 11 April, 1933, page 205.
This act abolishes all state agencies, departments, bureaus, etc.. and transfers them under the executive branch of government organized by the department of Finance and Taxation, Auditing, Law, Education and State.

HB-575. Banks and Banking. 9 March, 1933, page 258.
This act declares bank holiday, limits bank withdrawals, and for other purposes.

HB-349. Provide Building and Loan Code for Organization of Loan Associations. 8 June, 1933, page 284.
This act sets up the organizational structure for building and loan associations, and allows foreign corporations to participate.

HB-559. National Guard. 4 May, 1933, page 705.

SB-71. Marriage Licenses. 8 april, 1933, page 679.
This act places the marriage union under the authority of the District Courts.

SB-327. The Acquisition of Easements. 9 May,, 1933, page 496.
Under this act the State takes eminent domain of the shore line of all bodies of water, simply by the act of placing fish in the water, and it turns over access to the shores to the Federal Departments of Agriculture, Forest Service and Interior.

(Ed. Note. Eleven years later (1944) the Bureau of Land Management is created by the Federal government to control management of this new power.)

HB-172. Inheritance Taxes. 20 May, 1933, page 554.
The act imposes inheritance tax on real, personal, and intangible property.

HB-270. Colorado State Relief Committee. 11 May, 1933, page 385.
This act sets up a committee to loan money from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (Ed. Note. a Federal entity) to provide relief work and for other purposes.

SB-139. Taxes on Personal Property. 25 April, 1933.
This act made it easier for tax agency to collect taxes on all forms of personal property.

2nd Extraordinary Session. 1933-34:

HB-67. The Colorado State Industrial Recovery Act. 29 January, 1934, page 78.
This act facilitates cooperation between the State and its agencies, bureaus, departments, etc., and the Federal government.

HB-19. County Treasurer to Deposit Funds in Banks. 11 January, 1934.
This act requires all county treasurers to deposit all their funds in the Colorado Banks. It also allows counties to purchase bonds from the United States government, or other instrumentalities and to keep their securities in State banks.

Licenses to Open Stores. 6 November, 1934, page 1090.
This acts requires that a license be purchaed by anyone to open a store in Colorado. The license fee is $2.50. Penalties for not acquiring the license are punishable by a fine of $200 per day, or $133,225 a year for violations.

Regular Session, 1935:

SB-433. Disposition of Certificates of Purchase. 16 February, 1935.
This act allows counties to sell property seized under the tax lien acts.

SB-690. Birth Certificates. 10 April, 1935.
This act allows for the issuance of Birth Certificates to all adopted children.

HB-894. 2 February, 1935, page 1000.
This act imposes a new state-wide emergency excise tax on retail sales.

SB-6. Establishment of a State Highway Courtesy Patrol. 10 April, 1935, page 470.
This act establishes Colorado State Police to enforce the Motor Vehicle Code Revenue Laws.

Subsequent research has established that Nebraska enacted virtually the same statutes, in words and phrases that are, in places, identical to the wording in the Colorado statutes.

Don't forget, Roosevelt funded the original Council on State Governments that had branches in all states whose members were the 'politically correct' leaders in the state governments.

The Council on State Governments coordinated Roosevelt's federal take-over in the states, which may account for the similiar words in state statutes.

Recent members of the National Steering Committee for the Council were none other than, Bill Clinton, and David Roberti, President Pro Tem of the California State Senate.

A Review of

Military Government and Martial Law

William E. Birkhimer, L.L.B.

Major, General Staff, U.S. Army.

Third Edition, Revised.

Franklin Hudson Publishing Company.

Kansas City, Missouri, U.S.A. 1914.

Review by: John William

If your looking for some light-weight reading, on the level of most patriot literature, don't plan on finding it in this work.

In 29 chapters, 6 appendices, and 700 pages, Birkhimer writes a tome that is not only heavy reading, but subtle in its implications as well.

Is he trying to tell us something, or is it merely a brilliant work that requires detailed study to understand?

At any rate, if your looking for one book to buy on what has existed in our nation since the War of Secession (1863) then this is it.

He often lays it on the line, as when he discusses the martial law imposed by Congress on the southern states after the War of Secession.

"...it [Congress] exercised command of the Army; not, however, by virtue of constitutional, but usurped authority." (page 481)

What is surprising, however, is that he even goes into the Petition of Right against Charles I, written by Sir Edward Coke (1628) which effectively terminated Martial Law in peace time, in England.

A Dollar in Silver

by Phillip Randolph

George Washington, as President of the united States of America, signed into law on the second day of the fourth month in the year of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, seventeen hundred ninety-two, an Act of Congress to establish a national coinage.

This Act established a dollar, or unit, as measured by 374 grains of fine silver. The total gross weight of the dollar coin would be 416 grains, making the alloy 892/thousandths fine.

Silver existed in a bimetallic ratio of fifteen to one with gold, at that time.

The silver coinage was changed in 1837, by law, to reflect an alloy of 900/thousandths fine.

This same fineness in coinage is reflected in all Lawful silver coins (dollars, half-dollars, quarter-dollars and dimes) minted prior to 1965, at which time a debasement of the coinage took place.

What most people call 'junk silver,' is in fact, the only lawful money on the land in this state available to Good and Lawful Christian Men and Women, today.

Silver bullion (999/thousandths fine) exists in a commercial venue, as a commodity, and is not therefore useful to the Good and Lawful Christian People as a medium of exchange.

Silver Coin of the Realm can be acquired by the bag (one thousand dollars face value) or by individual coin at most numismatic coin shops.

Caveat emptor, or let the buyer beware.

All money in a Christian Jural Society should be Coin of the Realm, for obvious reasons.

Abraham Lincoln:

the Father of a New Country

It is more and more clear that the reality of what Lincoln did, as President of the united States, and the picture painted by his biographers and worshippers, are not only not even close, there not even in the same world.

Take, for example, the Leiber Martial Law Doctrine that Lincoln had written in 1863.

During the months between the time Congress abandoned Washington, D.C., Lincoln ruled by Executive Order. Though he wrote less than two dozen such orders during his time in office, they were momentous.

The very first Executive Order signed by a President of the united States was executed on April 21st, 1861. With it, Lincoln called up 75,000 militia from among the states. Other E.O.'s were delegated to the Adjutant General's office to execute.

Lincoln knew he acted without authority, and commissioned a special code to be written, 'governing' his actions, that justified his seizure of power, under the Doctrine of Necessity.

The Code is known as The Lieber Instructions, and was promulgated as General Orders No. 100, by Lincoln, on April 24, 1863. It provided the means to bring international and municipal law, under The Law of War, onto American soil and extend it, for the first time, beyond Washington, D.C..

This Code took the U.S. into the 1874 Brussels Conference (two years after Washington, D.C.., became a corporation) and into the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.

The Lieber Code states in Section I, Article 1., that;

"A place, district, or country occupied by an enemy stands, in consequence of the occupation, under the Martial Law of the invading or occupying army, whether any proclamation declaring Martial Law, or any public warning tohe inhabitants, has been issued or not. Martial Law is the immediate and direct effect and consequence of occupation or conquest."(emphasis added)

Note carefully, Lincoln created a modus operandi wherein Presidents of the U.S. could put all Americans under Martial Law, and haul them into Military Tribunals for trial - without ever informing anyone that they were under Martial Law.

The Code goes on to say in the same Section, Article 10, that;

"Martial Law affects chiefly the police and collection of public revenue and taxes, whether imposed by the expelled government or by the invader, and refers mainly to the support and efficiency of the army, its safety, and the safety of its operations." (emphasis added).

Is it coincidence that the I.R.S. first flexed its muscles at about this same time? Its function was, to collect war reparations extracted from the conquered peoples of the South to re-pay the North's War Debt.

Do not forget that the U.S. had a net surplus income in 1860 of some $74,000, yet five years later, it had a deficit of $522,878,000, a staggering sum in 1865. Yet, in the four years after the War, the Treasury showed a net surplus of $70,759,000.

Note also, that before the War, the budget of the U.S. never exceeded $61 million, but after the war it was never less than $288 millions. Nearly a five-fold increase.

Did the I.R.S. do its job or not???

Next month, more on the shenanigans during this era as we dig up a few more bones.

The following is from a book written in 1833 by Theodore Dwight, secretary of The Hartford Convention, titled "History of The Hartford Convention: with a review of the policy of The United Sates Government, which led to The War of 1812."

The acknowledged head of the Anti-federal party was Thomas Jefferson. At the time when the convention which formed the constitution was in session, and until its adoption by nine of the states, Mr. Jefferson was absent from the country in France, where he had resided as the ambassador of the United States for a number of years. As his character and conduct will be found to be intimately connected with the subject of this work, it will be necessary to devote some time to an examination of his political career, from the time of his return from Europe, until the expiration of his administration of the national government.

This gentleman came into public life at an early age; and after having been once initiated in political pursuits, he devoted to them a large portion of the residue of his days. His mind was of a visionary and speculative cast; he was somewhat enthusiastic in his notions of government, ambitious in his disposition, and fanciful in his opinions of the nature and principles of government. By a long course of watchful discipline, he had obtained a strict command over his temper, which enabled him to wear a smooth and plausible exterior to persons of all descriptions with whom he was called to mingle or associate. Having been chairman of the committee of the congress of 1776, by whom the Declaration of Independence was drawn up, that fact gave him a degree of celebrity, which the mere style of composition in that celebrated document would not, under other circumstances, have secured to its author. At the same time, he had the reputation of being a scholar as well as a statesman; and more deference was paid to him, in both respects, than the true state of the case called for, or in strictness would warrant. His knowledge of men, however, was profound; he understood the art of gaining and retaining popular favour beyond any other politician either of ancient or modern times. Whilst he was apparently familiar with those who were about him, he was capable of deep dissimulation; and though he had at his command a multitude of devoted agents, he was generally his own adviser and counsellor. If, by any untoward circumstance, he found himself in the power of any individual to such an extent as to endanger his standing in the community, he took care to secure that individual to his interests, by an obligation so strong as to be relieved of all serious apprehensions of a future exposure. In addition to all this other characteristics, during his long residence in France, he had become thoroughtly imbued with the principles of the infidel philosophy (the French Enlightenment Movement) which prevailed in that kingdom, and extensively over the continent of Europe, previously to and during the French revolution. This fact, in connection with the belief that his views of government were of a wild and visionary character, destroyed the confidence of a large portion of his most intelligent countrymen in him as a politician, as well as a moralist and a Christian.

Mr. Jefferson was in Paris when the constitution was published. He early declared himself not pleased with the system of government which it contained. On the 13th of November, 1787, in a letter to John Adams, he said - "How do you like our new constitution? I confess there are things in it which stagger all my dispositions to subscribe to what such an assembly has proposed. The house of federal representatives will not be adequate to the management of affairs either foreign or federal. Their president seems a bad edition of a Polish king. He may be elected from four years to four years, for life. Reason and experience prove to us, that a chief magistrate, so continuable, is an office for life. When one or two generations shall have proved that this is an office for life, it becomes, on every succession, worthy of intrigue, of bribery, of force, and even of foreign interference. It will be of great consequence to France and England, to have America governed by a Gallonzan or an Angloman. Once in office, and possessing the military force of the Union, without the aid or check of a council, he would not be easily dethroned, even if the people could be induced to withdraw their votes from him. I wish that, at the end of the four years, they had made him forever ineligible a second time. Indeed, I think all the good of this new constitution might have been couched in three or four new articles to be added to the good, old, and venerable fabric, which should have been preserved even as a religious relique."

In a letter of the same date to Colonel Smith, he says "I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave, through you, to place them where due. It will yet be three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it, and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a chief eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed toward one: and what we have always read of the election of Polish kings, should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat, and model into every form, lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honorably conducted? I say nothing of its motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the facts they misconceive. If they remain in quiet under such misconceptions, it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to public liberty. We have had thirteen states independent for eleven years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties, its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon, and pacify them. What signfy a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

In a letter to William Carmichael, dated December 11th, 1787, he says- "Our new constitution is powerfully attacked in the American newspapers. The objections are, that its effect would be to form the thirteen states into one; that proposing to melt all down into a general government, they have fenced the people by no declaration of rights; they have not renounced the power of keeping a standing army; they have not secured the liberty of the press; they have reserved the power of abolishing trials by jury in civil cases; they have proposed that the laws of the federal legislatures shall be paramount to the laws and constitutions of the states; they have abandoned rotation in office; and particularly their president may be re-elected from four years to four years, for life, so as to render him a king for life, like a king of Poland; and they have not given him either the check or aid of a council. To these they add calculations of expense, &C &C to frighten the people. You will perceive that those objections are serious, and some of them not without foundation."

The subject is alluded to subsequently in a variety of letters to different correspondents, in the course of which he confines his objections principally to the omission of a bill or declaration of rights, and the re-eligibility of the president.

Enough has been quoted to show that Mr. Jefferson was not friendly to the constitution; and some of his sentiments were of a nature to shake the confidence of its friends in the soundness of his general political principles. Of this description were his remarks on the Massachusetts insurrection. So far from considering rebellion against government an evil, he viewed it as a benefit - as a necessary ingredient in the republican character, and highly useful in its tendency to warn rulers, from time to time, that the people possessed the spirit of resistance. And particularly would the public feelings be shocked at the cold-blooded indifference with which he inquires, "What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?" and the additional remark, that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." This language would better become a Turkish Sultan, or the chief of a Tartar horde, than a distinguished republican, who had been born and educated in a Christian country, and enjoyed all the advantages to be derived from civilization, literature, and science.

"n September, 1789, Mr. Jefferson left Paris, on his return to the United States. On the 15th of December, of that year, he wrote the following letter to General Washington:

Chesterfteld, December 15, 1789.

"TO THE PRESIDENT.
"SIR, - I have received at this place the honor of your letters of October the 13th, and November the 30th, and am truly flattered by your nomination of me to the very dignified office of Secretary of State, for which permit me here to return you my humble thanks. Could any circumutance seduce me to overlook the disproportion between its duties and my talents, it would be the encouragement of your choice. But when I contemplate the extent of that office, embracing as it does the principal mass of domestic administration, together with the foreign, I cannot be insensible of my inequality to it; and I should enter on it with gloomy forebodings from the criticisms and censures of a public, just, indeed, in their intentions, but sometimes misinformed and misled, and always too respectable to be neglected. I cannot but foresee the possibility that this may end disagreeably for me, who having no motive to public service but the public satisfaction, would certainly retire the moment that satisfaction should appear to languish. On the other hand, I feel a degree of familiarity with the duties of my present office, as far at least as I am capable of understanding its duties. The ground I have already passed over, enables me to see my way into that which is before me. The change of government too, taking place in the country where it is exercised, seems to open a possibility of procuring from the new rulers some new advantages in commerce, which may be agreeable to our countrymen. So that, as far as my fears, my hopes, or my inclinations might enter into this question, I confess they would not lead me to prefer a change.
"But it is not for an individual to choose his post. You are to marshal us as may best be for the public good; and it is only in the case of its being indifferent to you, that I would avail myself of the option you have so kindly offered in your letter. If you think it better to transfer me to another post, my inclination must be no obstacle; nor shall it be, if there is any desire to suppress the office I now hold, or to reduce its grade. In either of these cases, be so good as to signify to me by another line your ultimate wish, and I shall conform to it cordially. If it should be to remain at New-York, my chief comfort will be to work under your eye, my only shelter the authority of your name, and the wisdom of measures to be dictated by you and implicitly executed by me. Whatever you may be pleased to decide, I do not see that the matters which have called me hither will permit me to shorten the stay I originally asked; that is to say, to set out on my journey northward till the month of March. As early as possible in that month, I shall have the honor of paying my respects to you in New-York. In the mean time, I have that of tendering to you the homage of those sentiments of respectful attachment with which I am, Sir, Your most obedient, and most humble servant,"
TH. JEFFERSON.

This letter will show with what feelings of esteem and respect for General Washington Mr. Jefferson professedly accepted the appointment of Secretary of State. It may hereafter appear with what degree of Sincerity these professions were made; and it is important to the object of this work, that it should be borne in mind by the reader, because one end which the writer has in view in preparing it is, to enable the community to form a more just estimate of his principles and character. By adverting to that part of Mr. Jefferson's writings, published since his death, which bears the singular and awkward title of "Ana," it appears by his own declarations, that immediately upon entering upon the duties of his office, he became an opposer of some of the principal measures of the government. He says - "I returned from that mission (to France in the first year of the new government, having landed in Virginia in December, 1789, and proceeded to New-York in March, 1790, to enter on the office of Secretary of State. Here, certainly, I found a state of things which, of all I had ever contemplated, I the least expected. I had left France in the first year of her revolution, in the fervor of natural rights, and zeal for reformation. My conscientious devotion to those rights could not be heightened, but it had been aroused and excited by daily exercise. The president received me cordially, and my colleagues, and the circle of principal citizens, apparently with welcome."

(continued in Issue the Tenth).

News from Home

Reprinted from The Kanzas News (Emporia, Kanzas) published during the years 1850-1870

For Christ's Sake

Saturday April 17, 1858

An exchange paper says: "The chaplain of the Iowa house of Representatives, at the opening of the morning session, the other day, prayed very graphically and to the point as follows: 'Great God! Bless the young and growing State of Iowa, her Senators and Representatives, her Governor and State officers--give us a sound currency, pure water, and undefiled religion, for Christ's sake; Amen.'"

That's So!

Saturday May 8, 1858

Why is an editor like the book of Revelations?.

Because he is full of 'types, and shadows,' and a mighty voice, -like the sound of many waters, is ever saying to him, "Write."

Hazlitt says: "Most people do not think; they only think they think."

About Collecting Taxes

Saturday, June 6, 1857

On the 1st instant, Deputy Marshal Fam visited Lawrence for the purpose of assessing taxes, according to enactment of the Bogus Legislature.- The citizens held a meeting, and after spirited addresses by Judge Conway and others, adopted a series of resolutions, among which were the following:

Resolved, That in the opinion of this meeting no good citizen will, in any manner, furnish "aid and comfort" to the Assessor or Collector of Taxes, or render to him a list of the valuation of his property.

Resolved, That, recognizing the principal established by the blood of Our fathers, that "representation and taxation are inseparable," we will not violate that principal by the voluntary payment of any taxes levied by the present Territorial Legislature.

I Don't Like the Name

Saturday, June 20, 1857

A man named Aaron Bedbug, Montgomery county, Kentucky, is about to petition the Legislature to change his name. He says that his sweetheart, Olivia, is unwilling that he should be called A. Bedbug, she, 0. Bedbug, and the little ones, Little Bedbugs.

Court Reporter?

August 1, 1857

John Smith was tried over in Shawnee county last week, for stealing a hog worth one dollar and a half. After the testimony and presentation of evidence, the jury retired to an adjoining grove of trees to make up the verdict. It weren't long before they returned with a verdict of "guilty of hog stealin' in the fust degree." The Judge told them the verdict was proper, except that they had omitted to assess the value of the property, and that there was no 'degree' to hog stealing, to retire again and bring in a verdict in proper "form." Again they retired with pen, ink, and paper, rather nonplussed with regard to "form." They pondered long and deep over what he meant by form. At last, old Turner, who'd been justice of the peace over in Oklahoma, wrote the verdict and returned to the court-house. The jury filed in and old Jim handed the verdict to the clerk with anxious pomposity, and sat down. The clerk read the following verdict: "We the jury, find the defendant guilty in the sum of one dollar and a half - in favor of the hog."

***

Letters from Home: Mom says: "Mrs. Nonsogood regards every calamity that happens to her as a major trial, and every calamity that happens to someone else - a judgment.

***

Mom also sent along her famous soap recipe: Collect all the political papers you can lay your hand on to make it with. "They are a dang sight better than ashes - and they're almost as good as clear lie!

Saturday, November 7, 1857

A story is going the rounds of the papers to the effect that Mr. Daniel S. Morrison was recently lost in an immense cornfield in Hot Springs county, Arkansas, and wandered about for three days trying to find his way out. He was found on the 4th day by his negroes, who went out to search for him!

He must have been a slow walker or an idiot. If the field was fifty miles square, he could have walked straight out if necessary. It's a good thing that the negroes knew more than the master. -- Woman's Advocate.

He was evidently "corn-ed."

Saturday, December 5, 1857

A worthy clergyman in the city of New York, following the practice of his ministerial brethren, recently preached a very earnest discourse on the hard times, enforcing the duty of retrenchment and economy. Immediately after church, the congregation took him at his word, by holding a meeting, at which his salary was cut down from $1000 to $600.

Saturday, September 12, 1857

To the wicked, the virtues of other men are always objects of terror.

Saturday, July 3, 1858

We hear of a piquant correspondence that has just passed between two clergymen in a city where a considerable awakening has taken place. In substance, the correpondence ran as follows:

BAPTIST TO METHODIST CLERGYMAN. ---- Dear Brother: I shall baptize some converts to-morrow; if any of your converts prefer to be baptized in our mode, I shall be happy to baptize them as candidates for your church.

METHODIST TO BAPTIST CLERGYMAN. ---- Dear Brother: Yours received. I prefer to wash my own sheep. - - Springfield Rep.

Saturday, June 26, 1858

There is a man in one of the Western States who has moved so often, that whenever a covered wagon comes near his house, his chickens all march up, fall on their backs, and cross their legs, ready to be tied and carried to their next stopping place.

Saturday, June 12, 1858

The fellow who was content that his life should be linked with crime, has found a strong chain round his leg, and a pair of handcuffs upon his wrists.

Saturday, August 27, 1859

A member of the Mississippi Legislature, at one of its late sessions, introduced a bill to change the name of a certain county in that State, to Cass County. One of the opposition moved, as an amendment, that the letter C. be stricken out of the proposed name. This motion created some laughter at the expense of the member offering. Nothing daunted, however, he arose in reply and said, "Mr. Speaker, this is the first instance that has come to my knowledge in which a member has had the assurance upon the floor of any legislature, to propose to name a county after himself."

Saturday, September 17, 1859

A minister, noted for combining the somewhat incongruous professions of preacher and money lender, was proferring a prayer, in which was the following petition: "Grant that we may have an interest in heaven."

"Don't do it," exclaimed one of the congregation, "don't do it. The old sinner gets five per cent a month now, and that's enough, the Lord knows."

Saturday, August 22, 1857

Why is a restless sleeper like a lawyer?

Because he lies on one side; and then turns over and lies on the other side.

Issue the Tenth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

501(c)3 Churches: Godly or Godless?

It's All in the Name...

Sanford v. The Justices of Maine...

Thomas Jefferson: Friend or Foe, Part Two...

News from Home...

501(c)3 Churches: Godly, or Godless?

The most important issue facing America's Christian churches in this last decade of the 20th Century, is - from whence does the church derive its authority to exist.

To most Christians, the answer is obvious; the Christian church derives its right to exist from the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ and Scripture.

But, it is one thing to believe this, and quite another to act like it. The church may preach this doctrine, but in fact, it acts as if its right to exist is derived from the state. They say one thing and yet, practice another, and this is true of the vast majority of Christian churches in America today.

And, while many examples of this can be pointed to within the history of the church in the last century, the most glaring example of it, and the clearest evidence of it, is the fact that the vast majority of Christian churches, special groups, foundations, private schools, etc., all exist as 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt, charity corporations.

Indeed, every minister that graduates from a seminary, if he sets out to build a new church, does, as his very first act, raise money to form such a corporation. In other words, the first thing the Christian does when forming a church, foundation, ministry, etc., is to hire an attorney-at-law, to get the churches house, 'legally,' in order.

Of course, there is no authority or Law in Scripture commanding Christian churches to do this. One wonders how the first churches at Ephesus, Jerusalem, and Rome ever got organized -- without a Roman Advocate (attorney) going before Caesar to get his permission for a church to exist in Rome.

Indeed, one principle reason why the church was in such trouble in Rome and elsewhere is, they refused to bow to Caesar and seek his permission to preach the Gospel.

In fact, the church met right under Caesar's nose -- in Catacomb's, in spite of him.

At any rate, the other service the attorney provides is usually, to formulate the by-laws of the new corporation.

The process costs from 600 to 2,000 dollars. Of course, the more "spiritual" an attorney is, the less he charges.

Of course, no church is completely organized unless it has an accountant. Again, the accountants spirituality may be measured by a discount on his services to a church if he just happens to be a 'member.'

This same accountant, if he handles the tax returns of the church (Note: the church may be tax exempt, but this does not mean it files no tax returns) must be a Certified Public Accountant, which means he is a specialist in I.R.S. matters.

All these high-powered attorneys, accountants, and C.P.A.'s, cost money, and the larger the church is the more it costs for their professional services.

It's not unusual for pros to cost a medium to large church 10, 20, or 50,000 dollars a year - when the real cost of their services and charges are totaled. Moving up to a denominational level, one may find a law firm on the payroll -- under an annual retaining fee .

The bottom line is, it's all a great waste of God's property. Regardless of the source we go to, the truth is, there is no law, code, or regulation -- anywhere -- at the federal, state, county, or city level, that requires Christian churches, et al, to form 501(c)3 corporations.

Surely law requires a church to at least register with a government as a tax exempt organization, or Christian charity? Here again, the answer is a resounding -- no!

If pressed, some attorneys admit it. Then add a whole list of reasons why one should incorporate, and they will be joined by accountants and C.P.A.'s, because all stand to benefit therefrom.

This may sound like a harsh judgment on attorneys, etc., but has anyone ever seen an attorney, etc., stand up in a congregation, or inform the church by letter, or other means, that they will not join a church that incorporates???

And, before we cease the criticism of attorneys, etc., there is one more point that needs to be made, because, in the broader sense, it is the most important point of all.

-First, all attorneys are bound by the rules of courts in which they practice. All C.P.A.'s are licensed and regulated by the state and federal governments.

-Second, attorneys may draw up the papers to form the church as a 501(c)3 corporation, and write its by-laws, the law of all corporate operations are controlled by state and federal governments, and the I.R.S.

Thus, all legal and accounting matters are controlled by governments and the I.R.S. from beginning to end and in all operations between.

Even architects who design church buildings, along with surveyors, engineers, contractors, etc., are licensed and controlled by city, county, and state governments!

Thus, the 501(c)3 corporation is a creature of the state and is controlled by the government and its agents.

The evidence for this is found in every law dictionary published in the last two hundred years. Thus, in Bouvier's (1914) we find that a corporation is:

"A body, consisting of one or more natural persons, established by law, usually for some specific purpose, and continued by a succession of members.
"An artificial being created by law and composed of individuals who subsist as a body politic under a special denomination with the capacity of perpetual succession and of acting within the scope of its charter as a natural person. Fletsam vs. Hay, 133 Ill. 293. By fiction it is partly a person and partly a citizen, yet it has not the inalienable rights of a natural person; Northern Securities Co. vs. United States, 193 U.S. 200, 24 Sup. Ct. 436, 48 L. Ed. 679.
"A corporation aggregate is a collection of individuals united in one body by such a grant of privileges as secures succession of members without changing the identity of the body and constitutes the members for the time being one artificial person or legal being capable of transacting the corporate business like a natural person. Bronson, J., People v. Assessors of Village of Watertown, 1 Hill (N.Y.) 620."

But, the privilege of being a corporation is not enough, the 501(c)3 corporation also has a "tax exempt" status.

Note, the word 'exempt.' The hidden idea behind it is, all property of is potentially seizable or taxable, but certain property or entities, i.e., churches, are exempt.

But, since the law of the corporation as well as the corporation itself, is a creature of the state, then such corporations can have their status changed over night by an Executive Order of the President, a new I.R.S. regulation, or an act of Congress. Suddenly, the church is no longer exempt anymore.

Note also, corporations are "fictions," "persons," and "natural persons," all of which are without substance in law whose liberties and civil rights are controlled by the state. They are mere figments of the mind of men.

But, it was not always so, as we shall see.

Thus, Bouvier's says:

"The corporation in England was the joint result of certain groups in ecclesiastical life and certain other groups active in temporal affairs. For centuries the development of each was wholly independent of the other. The boroughs first began to secure from the king franchises to hold their own courts, to their own customs and freedom from toll... The franchises took the form of a grant from the king and were made to the burgesses. No legal person was created, but the burgesses died and their privileges were continued to their successors. When individual inhabitants of the borough offended the king by their acts, he took away the franchise of the borough as a punishment, which punishment fell on the community..."
"The same idea developed in ecclesiastical life, for wholly different reasons, religious groups were formed. The basic doctrines of the Christian church require co-operation and also continuity of thought and effort. Monasteries, convents, and chapters were the result. It became evident that this indefinite something produced by the association of several should be given a name and its status established. There was much blind groping after the nature of this indefinite something. For a time the idea naturally suggested by the analogy of the human body was applied to these groups. The chief officer, members were the arms, legs, etc. This was called the anthropomorphic theory and for a long time obscured the true corporate idea."

Note carefully the Apostle Pauls' words in his extended argument in his Letter to the Corinthians ( I Cor. 12:12-25 ) where he says:

"For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased Him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: And those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need; but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honor to that part which lacked: That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another."

Elsewhere in Scripture, we find extended argument on the law of the churches and the state. The object is, to create a working entity in both church and state, which fulfills a Godly purpose and is organized according to the Law of Scripture in such a way that no one single man or small group of men within each, can control and compel the performance of another in violation of conscience and God's Law.

Pound continues with:

"Finally, however, the oneness of these groups was given a definite recognition, not as a real, but as an ideal or legal person. The conception of an ideal person having legal rights and duties was borrowed directly from the early English theory as to church ownership. In very early times, several centuries at least before the reign of Edward I., there were in England what were vaguely known as church lands. At first the land was given direct to God. Sometimes it was given to a particular saint. who was supposed to guard and protect it. Little by little, the saint and the buildings became merged in each other and the church itself was thought to be the property owner. The functions of ownership were necessarily performed by human beings - by the clergy - and the theory was naturally extended to cases where there was only one cleric. Thus was introduced the corporation sole, characterized as 'that unhappy freak of English law'. In ecclesiastical affairs, the corporation aggregate was almost resolved into a mere collection of corporations sole."

The real model of the corporation sole came from a theological understanding of how one should act in a particular capacity within the church and state. Christian doctrine formed the essential core of meaning in the corporation sole.

Some time later, the doctrine of the corporation sole would be confused and used by king's and other powerful or power-seeking men.

"It was not until about the middle of the 15th century that it was settled as a matter of positive law that the corporation must be created by the sovereign power, which rule arose simply from considerations of political expediency. Recognizing that boroughs, organized communities and gilds might become dangerous, the king made them a source of revenue by selling the privilege to exist. In 1440 the first municipal charter was granted. The mayor, burgesses and their successors, mayors and burgesses of the town of Kingston-upon-Hull, were incorporated so as to form "one perpetual corporate commonalty."

Note that the corporation is here gradually being co-opted by the kings, to serve the own ends, i.e., tax revenues.

"What we call a corporation was first called un corps or a body, whence our 'body politic,' or 'body corporate'; or, un gros, something that had existence in itself, apart from its constituents. Thus there was gradually evolved the idea of an abstract artificial individuality, composed of members for the time being, to be succeeded by others after them, but continuing after their death. This became the persona ficta of a later time.... "There was no intention on either part to form a corporation, indeed neither knew what a corporation was; for the name did not exist, but the thing itself was being gradually evolved."

Thus, before 1500, corporations religious or otherwise, were quasi-corporations defined by Anderson as:

"... a body which exercises certain functions of a corporate character, but which has not been created a corporation by any statute, general or specific."

There are two points to note here.

-First, the 'certain functions' exercised by the quasi-corporation consisted primarily of existing in perpetuity and the succession of powers in offices, usually created by the corporate members themselves.

-Second, and very important, such corporations acted without receiving any benefit, privilege, or opportunity from the king or civil government at any level.

The non-religious quasi-corporations existed by virtue of the customs and usages of the times.

But, religious quasi-corporations existed by the command of God in Scripture which pre-dates the legal memory of man (1189 A.D.), and thus, they existed as a right given by God.

The one significant difference between these two types of quasi-corporations was, the non-religious type could sue and be sued, but the Christian quasi-corporation could not.

The reason why church they could not sue or be sued is, there was no court in which the sovereign could be brought to trial. How does one sue God, or bring Him into court?

Because modern church corporations are created by governments and granted certain benefits (tax exempt), privileges (the leadership is immune to prosecution personally), and opportunities (the right to engage in commercial activities that are otherwise illegal), has made all 501(c)3 churches vulnerable to suit by anyone, for any reason, at any time, as recent history has shown.

The quasi-corporate idea, however, was co-opted by the kings as it applied to local boroughs and other bodies politic, for revenue purposes, but there was no attempt by English kings or American government that existed before the Constitution, to co-opt the Christian quasi-corporations until 1813, which we will get to later.

An interesting perspective on church government and a major void in the understanding of modern Christians, is the approach to the legal existence of the church, held by the Puritans.

This theological concept is most likely derived from the Apostle Paul's argument above. It not only shaped the law governing the church, but the entire American system of jurisprudence. In sum, it acted on both church and state.

"A fundamental proposition from which the Puritan proceeded was the doctrine of a willing covenant of conscious faith made by the individual. Thus he put individual conscience and individuals in the first place. No authority might rightfully coerce them; but everyone must assume and abide the consequences of the choice he made. Applied to church polity, it led to a regime of consociation but not subordination. 'We are not over one another,' said Robinson [Pastor of the Pilgrims in Holland], 'but with one another.' Hence even church organization was a species of contract and a legal theory, a legalism, attached even to religion. If men were to be free to act according to their consciences and to contract with others for consociation in congregations, it was a necessary consequence that the state, as a political congregation, was a matter of contract also; and liberty of contract was a further necessary deduction. The early history of New England furnishes abundant applications of the idea that covenant or compact with the consent of every individual to the formation and to the continuance of the community was the basis of all communities, political as well as religious. The precedent of the covenant which made Abraham and the children of Israel the people of God, furnished the religious basis for the doctrine. But it was applied to civil as well as to ecclesiastical organization."

Thus we see the extension of the Puritan theological ideas to both church and state.

One plus in forming 501(c)3 corporations is that of leaving very little for the congregation to think about in terms of internal church polity, i.e., church government. Thus, in most modern 501(c)3 church corporations, congregations have little interest in the doctrines of the Biblical form of church worship.

The congregation doesn't want to be bothered with such matters. If they did, they might discover that 501(c)3 corporations are not a Biblical way for a church to operate. They might even discover that a pastor of the church or (God forbid) elders and deacons are not maintaining their proper sphere of authority.

And if, by some miracle, a congregation became intensely interested in a Biblical form of worship, to implement the reforms, they would have to abandon 501(c)3 standing, because what the state demands and what God demands are two entirely different things, especially when the state is a military government and the states are all under martial rule, a consequence of the loss of theological basis of Law in America.

At any rate, a consequence of the idea of individual self-responsibility and legal consequences for our acts was contradictory of "the feudal conception of referring to some relation. Contracts and voluntary culpable conduct appeared to be the solving ideas for all problems and the law was to be apportioned between the contractual and the delictual [crime or tort]. Another consequence was to make a moral question of everything, and yet in such a way as to make it a legal question. For moral principles are of individual and relative application. In applying them we must take account of circumstances and of individuals. Hence if every question was treated as a moral question and controversies involving moral questions were to be dealt with as concrete cases to be individualized in their solution, subordination of those whose cases were decided to those who had the power of weighing the circumstances of the actual case and individualizing the principle to meet the case, might result. The idea of consociation demanded that a fixed, absolute, universal rule, by which the individual had contracted to abide, be resorted to; and thus the moral and the legal principle were to be applied in the same way, and that the legal way."

As Pound concludes his dissertation, he says

"... the conception of a maximum of abstract individual self-assertion exempt from social control, to which his {Mr. Justice [David Dudley] Field,} vigorous and learned opinions gave currency, is essentially the Puritan conception of consociation. We are to be with one another but not over one another. The whole is to have no right of control over the individual beyond the minimum necessary to keep the peace. Everything else is to be left to the free contract of a free man." Note: "Free Man" is not "freeman."

Square that with the tyranny of modern 501(c)3 church pastors, their high salaries, privileges, cars, television production facilities, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.

The point is, the early Puritan view of personal responsibility for ones acts led to a relationship between members of a congregation that resulted in a consociation, not a corporation created by the fiat declaration of any civil government.

Thus, early churches in America were created by the congregation through a covenant between the members that sought to express the members idea of what the proper form of church worship and polity was, according to Scripture. From this developed the civil governments based on the theology embraced in the covenants.

Such congregations had -- as individuals -- to think for themselves and take responsibility before God for the kind of covenant they entered into, one with another -- and they never even considered the possibility that they should have to go to the state or federal government, to get permission to exist, or to get a license for their pastors and teachers to fulfill their God-given mandates in the church.

Do modern Christian ever ask themselves whether or not a church can have two heads, Christ and the state.

The Scripture answer loud and clear; "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." (Matthew 6:24.)

This is especially telling when we realize that he modern military government and martial rule is imposed on us to protect commerce. Remember, Mars and Mercury, the gods of war and commerce respectively, always run together.

What we do not realize is, that the real law that governs the churches today, is the lex mercatoria, i.e., commercial law.

We now come to the year 1813 and the Presidency of James Madison.

In this year, for the first time since the adoption of the Constitution, Congress sent up a bill for Mr. Madison's signature, that would have established a church corporation -- as a creature of the Federal government -- in the District of Columbia.

Mr. Madison vetoed the bill immediately. His reasons were basically that:

a. The Christian church does not need the approval of any government in order to establish itself.
b. The incorporation of the church by any government constitutes a license that would give the federal government control of the church.

Thereafter, there was no major push to incorporate the churches until after Lincoln's War Against All States.

As the King's Men have tried to show for the last three years, the turning point for Law and liberty in America came with Lincoln's War, wherein, the Christian communities and the Constitution for the united States of America were done away with and martial law through a military government has been put in its place.

The law which once governed this nation with its powerful Puritan and Christian basis has been done away with and the old Roman law has been substituted with its emphasis on commerce. Thus, the above reference to Mars, the god of war, and Mercury, the god of traders and thieves.

What the Christian community has utterly failed to realize is the nature and extent of the transformation that has taken place in law since Lincoln's War. The issues that the history books belabor so much is not the real outcome of what has happened, because the war was as much religious as anything else in the sense that it replaced Christian theology as the underpinnings of Our law with that of the old Roman , or pagan system of law. And when two systems of law compete for the same allegiance each claims for itself, a political question is present.

Thus, we find that as early as the 11th century, in the works of St. Anselm (1033-1109) a doctrine of the atonement that was to have a major impact on the history of western law.

"Anselm's theory of the atonement, although never officially adopted by the church, became the predominant view in the West, not only from the twelfth to the fifteenth century but also (with modifications) in later times, and not only in Roman Catholic but also (with modifications) in Protestant thought. Moreover, it was this theory that first gave Western theology its distinctive character and its distinctive connection with Western jurisprudence." Berman, Law and Revolution, pp. 176 -177.

With the connection established between theology and law, the door was opened for the complete reform of law itself. With Henry of Bracton, known as the father of the common law, and others, the customs and usages of the English Christians and Anglo-Saxons was merged, in a sense, with Christian Canons, and the result was, the Christian common law of England and America.

In part, there was also an idea in Anselm's thought that helped later, to separate theology from law as it was before Anselm. But, this trend did not become obvious until the twentieth century.

This twentieth century development is a historical consequence of the Western belief, of which St. Anselm was the first exponent, that theology itself may be studied independently of revelation. Anselm had no intention of exalting reason at the expense of faith. Yet once reason was separated from faith for analytical purposes, the two began to be separated for other purposes as well. It was eventually taken for granted that reason is capable of functioning by itself, and ultimately this came to mean functioning without any fundamental religious beliefs whatever.

Thus, between Anselm in the 11th century, and the Renaissance in 17th century, reason triumphed over faith, and it was this factor that motivated The Great Reformation thinkers, who sought to restore all things to a Biblical foundation, including the realm of law.

The law became almost totally theological in its underpinnings with the Puritans, as we have seen. This system founded America and is the distinctive contribution of American Christians to Law until the early 1800's.

After the genocide of the Black Brigade in the Colonial War with England, in which the principle intellectual power behind the War and the Constitution, was murdered by the British, a decline in the purity and power of Christian thought began to be felt in all Christian circles. Within one generation, cults began to form within American Christendom and a move began to 're-reform' law and make it more consonent with reason, not theology.

Thus,

"... it was eventually taken for granted that law, as a product of reason, is capable of functioning as an instrument of secular power, disconnected from ultimate values and purposes; and not only religious faith but all passionate convictions came to be considered the private affair of each individual. Thus not only legal thought but also the very structure of Western legal institutions have been removed from their spiritual foundations, and those foundations, in turn, are left devoid of the structure that once stood upon them." Berman, Law and Revolution (1983), pp. 197-198.

With the transfer of the principal lawmaking and law enforcing functions to the sole jurisdictions of the national state [government], the foundation was laid for the separation of jurisprudence from theology and ultimately for the complete secularization of legal thought. This did not occur at once, since the predominant system of beliefs throughout the West remained Christian. It is only in the twentieth century that the Christian foundations of Western law have been almost totally rejected.

The lack of traditional Christian values and morality in our legal institutions is predictable along with the return to the old Roman system:

"Roman criminal law, in contrast, especially in the earlier period but also at the time of Justinian, was not greatly concerned with the moral quality of the specific criminal act; it was concerned, rather, with what is called today the protection of interests and enforcement of policies. In the postclassical period, as imperial power increased, the kinds of misconduct to which imperial punishment was applicable also increased, as did the severity of criminal sanctions." Berman, Law and Revolution (1984), p. 192.

Perhaps now, we can see why the modern idea of 'justice' makes less and less sense. And, with the enormous expansion of the Commerce Clause since Roosevelt, the logical consequence of the Roman law restored by Lincoln and Co. during and after the War, is come home to us.

The commercial aspect is today, a literal fulfillment of what Berman means when he says that "as imperial power increased, the kinds of misconduct to which imperial punishment was applicable also increased, as did the severity of criminal sanctions."

In the 1920's, however, with the growing power of the I.R.S., churches complained that the income tax would deprive them of tithes. During this period and after the 501(c)3 non-profit, tax exempt corporation was developed, to its present state to satisfy the demand -- within the churches -- for a king..

But, in the churches desire to convert their standing to 501(c)3 status, they, at the same time, polluted their congregations because the wealthy, who had the money to contribute, now attended church and gave handsomely, just to get a tax write-off. The influence of the wealthy began to be determinative of church polity and policy. The quality of preaching in the pulpit, in other words, declined for sake of filthy lucre.

As Peter has said, "Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being example to the flock."

With its new found money, the church expanded its so-called outreach which meant that they became dependent on the wealthy to stay involved in the church and continue to contribute, so the outreach could be sustained.

Today, we need only turn on the television to see the fruit of this rotten tree grown in the fields of commerce. Under Franklin D. Roosevelt and thereafter, the growth in the number of 501(c)3 churches exploded, to the extent that, by 1980, almost every church in America was incorporated.

In some of the smaller denominations, such as the Holiness churches and a few others, the idea never took root, and to this day such churches are not incorporated.

But, already by this time, another movement had begun in the Christian churches, that would expose to a limited extent, just how much power the governments acquired over the churches that were incorporated.

The precise date at which the movement began is not well known, but at least by the 1960's there was a growing reaction in the Christian community, to the decline of the public school system. The lack of traditional values in the public school curriculum, the growing violence and prevalence of drugs on public school campuses, and a variety of other reasons, combined to spawn within the Christian community a demand for their own school system, in their own churches. And, when the church would not, or could not, provide a school, parents began to teach their children at home.

It became evident to many Christians in the Nebraska School case, after Pastor Siliven and many of his parishoners were jailed, that perhaps there was something wrong with the way the church was organized.

In this case, the issue of separation of church and state was ignored from the outset, because the church was organized under the 501(c)3 laws and regulations.

In this case, the State of Nebraska demanded that the Christian school set up in Pastor Siliven's church be licensed in various ways, and they refused. Soon thereafter, the pastor and some members of the congregation were arrested and the church padlocked.

When Pastor Siliven objected, and raised the issue of separation of church and state, he was informed by the judge that in this case, there was no question of First Amendment Rights, because, as far as the State of Nebraska was concerned, "the church was just another corporation."

In the aftermath of this case, which was one of the first to receive major media coverage, instead of damping the growth of the private Christian school movement, the movement grew, almost exponentially. Today, about 25% of all children in America are either educated in private Christian schools, or in a home schools.

But, in the aftermath of the private Christian school movement, many pastors and congregations began to realize that the 501(c)3 corporate standing of their church was not a good idea. Thus, began the movement to dis-incorporate, or de-register among churches across America to the point that, nearly 10% of all churches in America have now de-registered. This amounts to some 10 to 12,000 churches.

At the same time, these churches have begun to wake up to the real intent and motives of the present military establishment known as the United States.

The possibilities inherent in a new reformation of America's Christian churches, are almost too numerous to list.

One point needs to mentioned here. The power that the Christian church once had, is now atrophied, because the church has been politicized, legalized, and compromised. The sheer power of the church as an asylum state in law, which the church once had, can have enormous impact on where America goes in the next century.

We've gone over the history of the church and its relationship to law and the 501(c)3 tax exempt corporation. Next month, we will turn to an analysis of the current legal status of 501(c)3 churches, and the arguments to justify their existence. Next month we will go over in detail the pros and cons of these arguments.

Meantime, pray and ask your pastor a few questions. Do not get belligerent. Do not argue. Instead, give them a copy of this article from The Christian Jural Society News.

It's All in the Name!!!

A Good and Lawful Christian Man does not have a name. He has a Christian appellation. Only animals, things, persons, human beings, individuals and residents have names, for commercial purposes, to wit:

Name. 'A designation by which a person, natural or artificial, is known.'
Designation. 'The use of an expression, instead of the name, to indicate a person or thing.'A Dictionary of Law (1893) by William C. Anderson. (See Issue the Sixth of The News, 'To Be or Not To Be, a Human Being,' for a study of what human beings and natural persons really are.)
Name. 1. 'The particular combination of vocal sounds employed as the individual designation of a single person, animal, place, or thing.'
Designation. 5. 'In Law, the statement of profession, trade, residence, etc., for purposes of identification 1824.' The Oxford Universal Dictionary (1933).
Name. 'The designation of an individual person, or of a firm or corporation.'
Designation. 'A description or descriptive expression by which a person or thing is denoted in a will without using the name. Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd Ed. (1933), page 1220.

And two maxims of law:

Nomina sunt notæ rerum: Names are the marks of things; and
Nomina sunt symbola rerum, Names are the symbols of things.

A Good and Lawful Christian Man or Woman is not a thing. Therefore, if one from a foreign jurisdiction wants to know if your name is 'so and so,' let them know that as a Good and Lawful Christian Man, you don't have a name, but a Christian appellation to which they can appeal.

The implications of giving your so-called name to anyone, especially when dealing with the imperial commercial courts and governments of D.C., the States, the Counties, and the Cities, can be quite devastating. Therefore, it is important to fully consider the following:

"The christian or baptismal name is, of course, really the name of importance and, surprising as it may seem, it does not matter in law nearly so much about the added or sur-name. The Christian name is therefore placed in the forefront, and incidentally is an essential part of the evidence of every witness in Court.....Everything must have a name. Many things cannot, in fact, exist without a name." Judge Edgar Dale, Foreword to 'The Law of Names', by Anthony Linell (1938).

When you are confronted by a 'person' asking if your name is 'so and so,' the only answer you can give is a resounding , no.

The reason you can say 'no' truthfully is in the fact that you have the knowledge that all paperwork and process coming from the imperial powers, under the Law of War, has your so-called name spelled in all capital letters. This is clearly not you.

When one asks you your name, they obviously don't know you. If this is the case, they are from a different or foreign jurisdiction, outside of your community. By answering to the name that comes out of their mouth, you answer to the fiction that that foreign jurisdiction has created for their purposes. By answering to the name, you remove yourself from the jurisdiction of Christendom and the church, and give jurisdiction to those who regulate natural persons, human beings and others of like 'species.'

The commercial aspect of names is where the imperial governments are looking.. With the giving of your name, you answer as a belligerent in the field, operating in a commercial venue, making you fully regulateable through codes, rules and regulations.

Consider this:

"Everything must have a name. Many things cannot, in fact, exist without a name. However much dignity and importance there may be in a corporation, it can have no possible existence until it is given a name. The importance of names is thus manifest, and it is a little surprising that apparently no attempt has before been made to deal with their full legal aspect." Judge Edgar Dale, Foreword to 'The Law of Names,' by Anthony Linell (1938).

Sanford v.

The Justices of Maine

by John Joseph

This article is not for those who are rutted in their version of American history, nor those who have no Christian discernment. It is for those Who want and thirst for the Truth which has been withheld from Them, to their shame.

Let Me first say that the issue is not one of race, but of ideology and the implementation of ideology. Race is a tool the media uses to sell terrorism, dissention, and destruction for the gratification of its stockholders and satisfaction of its balance sheet. If you are a stockholder of these vermin, please stop reading and go back to the self-gratification of your ego. If not, take notes, because you are in for a great surprise. The maxims of law state that the only thing truth fears is concealment. We hope to bring out the truth so We can shed the light on the real issues the media vermin only frost over with their drivel.

Now, to start clarifying the title. Sanford refers to the defendant in Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), 19 How. 393. This is a famous case in American legal circles, which perhaps maligned and disparaged a great majority of inhabitants in the several states, and set the stage for the most calamitous event in American history. We will be examining this case with the Opinion of the Justices (1857), 44 Me. 505 from the Supreme Court of Maine.

To start out it is necessary to understand the issue facing the court in the Sanford case. That issue was, "Does this court have jurisdiction to consider the merits of this case?" If it does, it should go to the merits of the case, and decide the issues therein. If not, then refuse the case, and not decide the issues contained in the pleadings. That was the central and only issue facing the court. Everything else hung on that one question.

The central and only issue for the Justices of Maine was whether free black men possessing and meeting qualifications applicable to free white men had the same identical political rights of free white men in the state of Maine. I will not dwell on the answer at this time. Rather, I will tell you to get both decisions and read them for your edification. [Ed. note: The Opinion of the Justices and the Sanford decision are available from Randy Lee.]

It is important to first of all understand the meaning of some words and phrases in the Constitution for the United States of America, particularly the phrase "We, the People of the United States," This is especially important because this declares who established the confederacy of several states. Chief Justice Taney, in the Sanford case, made several references to the preamble in his opinion.

I should tell you that Taney's opinion is not the only opinion in Sanford. Each of the Justices wrote an opinion, but Taney's received and continues to receive the approbation of the media, and those elitists who have their notions of what American history should be. It is such a shame that Taney's opinion is the only one ever cited as "law" when the facts do not reflect the truth of his statements. It is his opinion that set the final straw and allowed Lincoln's War to get off the ground. I will cover that later. Taney was also one of the largest slaveholders in Maryland, and could not see letting his slaves go when his balance sheet would not allow him to do so. Conflict of interest? You decide.

On the other hand, the Justices of Maine had no self-serving motive in rendering their opinion. Each stood on the facts of history which they carefully researched and documented in their opinion to the Senate of Maine.

Back to who did what. In reading the Opinion of the Justices you come across numerous facts of history that are never mentioned. Like black people fought side by side with white people during the "Revolution." (From this time forward in any of the writings from Me, I will always refer this event to be, "The War for Christian Liberty.") Numerous states had black electors exercising suffrage and holding office in the state governments. It is important to note here that suffrage is not indicative of whether a Christian is a member of a community. After all, women and children do not exercise suffrage and yet are considered members of the Christian community. Seeing then, that prior to the "Constitution for the United States of America," black people were citizens in some of the states, we must come now to look at the preamble to that document.

Looking at the wording, it says "the people of the United States." Who are these people?

"Only once did chance rather than forethought contribute a striking effect. The Preamble, when handed to the Committee on Style, which put the document in its final form, read: 'We the People of the States of New Hampshire,' and so forth through the thirteen states. Someone remarked that because only nine states were needed to ratify the Constitution and several might reject it--the refusal of George Mason and Edmund Randolph of Virginia, Luther Martin of Maryland, and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts to accept the convention's handiwork indicated that there might be some trouble in some states--the Preamble should be altered to read: 'We the People of the United States." David Hawke, The Colonial Experience (1966, The Bobbs-Merrill Co.), p. 673.

If black people were citizens of some of the states, are they excluded by this wording from that body politic declared in the preamble? Roger Brooke Taney thought so. But history and Law does not claim this. In fact it claims the opposite:

"Res transit cum suo onere--The thing [a political right] passes with its burden." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2161.

Thus, those who were citizens in the several states, who had adhered and taken on the burdens of fighting a common "enemy" had acquired, through their heroic acts, the same rights as everyone else who had done the same.

The next question is, were these inhabitants ever recognized on equal footing? Yes, in several states. And why were they recognized citizens? Because they had fought the common enemy--tyrannus rex--side by side with the Puritans. The Puritans recognized this when they organized their Christian communities--the bond of Christianity. Does the Law itself say those who enjoy the benefits must shoulder the burdens? Does it also say that the advantage is in he who assumes the risk?

"Cujus est commodum, ejus est onus--He who has the benefit has also the burden." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2130.

Had not they shouldered equal burdens and risks to enjoy the same and equal Christian Liberty under God? Equal rights were immediately vested in both, and both share the bond in and to Christ, where there is no more slave, free, Jew or Greek. What does the media offer here? Artificial schisms that enhance the balance sheet in the name of "news."

The problem most "patriots" fail to read, or better yet, choose to ignore, and which Roger Taney probably forgot about, is that his decision was to affect only those who were then held to servitude; and, was not to apply to Free Black People. Taney made this statement in the opening of his opinion. Unfortunately he forgot about it and most "patriots" choose to ignore it. Why? I would highly recommend you get a copy of John Quade's article on "Blue Widgets" from The Christian Jural Society Press for some, if not all, of their reasons. I can only speculate why, and I think to speculate is fruitless.

"It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine who were citizens of the several States when the Constitution was adopted. And in order to do this, we must recur to the governments and institutions of the thirteen colonies, when they separated from Great Britain and formed new sovereignties, and took their places in the family of independent nations. We must inquire who, at that time, were recognized as the people or citizens of a state, whose rights and liberties had been outraged by the English government; and who declared their independence and assumed the powers of government to defend their rights by force of arms.
"In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument." Dred Scott v. Sanford, supra, p. 407. [Emphasis added.]

Roger Taney made the distinction between the status of a free black man and a slave here but most "patriot" gurus fail to see it. Taney's decision rested entirely on the idea that those who were held to slavery could never really be emancipated and free. But looking to the laws regarding slavery, emancipation is a matter of state law, and not federal law:

"Emancipation is the removal of the incapacity of slavery, whereas the framing of a rule of naturalization belongs to the Government of the United States. It would be a dangerous mistake to confound them." Gaston, J., in State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Battle (N.C.) 20, 25.

Then Taney forgot all about his major premise and began to lump all into one unhappy hodge-podge, making no distinction between free blacks and slaves:

"Yet the men who framed this declaration were great men--high in literary acquirements--high in their sense of honor, and incapable of asserting principles inconsistent with those on which they were acting. They perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used, and how it would be understood by others; and they knew that it would not in any part of the civilized world be supposed to embrace the Negro race which, by common consent, had been excluded from civilized governments and the family of nations, and doomed to slavery. They spoke and acted according to the then established doctrines and principles, and in the ordinary language of the day, and no one misunderstood them. The unhappy black race were separated from the white by indelible marks, and laws long before established, and were never thought of or spoken of except as property, and when the claims of the owner or the profit of a trader were supposed to need protection.
"This state of public opinion had undergone no change when the Constitution was adopted, as is equally evident from its provisions and language." Dred Scott v. Sanford, ibid., pp. 409, 410.

What happened to the distinction between the free black man, recognized and partaking of political rights, in the states; and, the slave? Taney conveniently ignored the distinction.

Can the badge of slavery follow those of succeeding generations? This is similar to holding the son responsible for the sins of the father.

"Nullus jus alienum forisfacere potest--No man can forfeit another's right." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2151.

Even at the worst, the slaves had shouldered the same burdens, but in a different way. Had they not helped the master maintain and defend his household, lands, family, arms, wealth, and the like? Could the master have fought as courageously knowing that his family or possessions might be wasted? I think not.

"The term 'Citizen of the United States' must be understood to mean those who were citizens of the State as such after the Union had commenced and the several States had assumed their sovereignty. Before that period there were no citizens of the United States." Inhabitants of Manchester v. Inhabitants of Boston, 16 Mass. 230, 235.

So, we can see that Roger Taney obliterated distinctions in his opinion, which were necessary in setting the stage for the Abolitionists to hire mercenaries, under A. Lincoln and Associates, Inc.

(continued from Issue the Ninth)

The courtesies of dinner parties given me, as a stranger newly arrived among them, placed me at once in their familiar society. But I cannot describe the wonder and mortification with which the table conversations filled me. Politics were the chief topic, and a preference of a kingly over a republican government, was evidently the favorite sentiment. An apostate I could not be, nor a hypocrite; and I found myself, for the most part, the only advocate on the republican side of the question, unless among the guests there chanced to be some members of that party from the legislative houses. Hamilton's financial system had then passed. It had two objects: 1. As a puzzle, to exclude popular understanding and inquiry; 2. As a machine for the corruption of the legislature; for he avowed the opinion, that man could be governed by one of two motives only, force, or interest; force, he observed, in this country, was out of the question; and the interests, therefore, of the members, must be laid hold of to keep the legislature in unison with the executive. And with grief and shame it must be acknowledged that his machine was not without effect; that even in this, the birth of our government, some members were found sordid enough to bend their duty to their interests, and to look after personal, rather than public good.

Another measure of great importance, which Mr. Jefferson strongly disapproved, was the assumption of the state debts. Nothing could be more just or more reasonable than this act of the general government. The exertions of different states had necessarily been unequal, and in the same proportion their expenses had been increased. But those expenses had all been incurred in the common cause; and that cause having been successful, nothing could be more just than that the debts thus incurred should be borne by the nation. Mr. Jefferson, however, stigmatizes the measure as corrupt. "The more debt," he says, "Hamilton could rake up, the more plunder for his mercenaries." And he closes a long series of opprobrious remarks upon the subject, and upon the manner in which, according to his opinion, it was carried, by saying - " This added to the number of votaries to the Treasury, and made its chief the master of every vote in the legislature, which might give to the government the direction suited to his political views.

The bank was another measure which did not meet with Mr. Jefferson's support.

After remarking on these various subjects, he says, "Nor was this an opposition to General Washington. He was true to the republican charge confided to him, and has solemnly and repeatedly protested to me, in our conversations, that he would lose the last drop of his blood in support of it; and he did this the oftener, and with the more earnestness, because he knew my suspicions of Hamilton's designs against it, and wished to quiet them. For he was not aware of the drift, or of the effect of Hamilton's schemes. Unversed in financial projects, and calculations, and budgets, his approbation of them was bottomed on his confidence in the man.

But Hamilton was not only a monarchist, but for a monarchy bottomed on corruption." And he then gives an account of a conversation which he says took place at a meeting of the Vice-president and the heads of departments, in the course of which the British constitution was alluded to; and in regard to which he says - "Mr. Adams observed, 'Purge that constitution of its corruption, and give to its popular branch equality of representation, and it would be the most perfect constitution ever devised by the wit of man.' Hamilton paused, and observed, 'Purge it of its corruption, and give to its popular branch equality of representation, and it would become an impracticable government; as it stands at present, with all its supposed defects, it is the most perfect government which ever existed.

The Funding System was one of the great measures that distinguished General Washington's administration. It was devised by Hamilton, and has ever been considered as reflecting the highest credit upon his talents and patriotism. No man labored with more zeal or ability to procure the adoption of the constitution than this great statesman. The Federalist, of which he was one of the principal writers, and contributed the largest share, has long been considered as a standard work on the constitution, and is now resorted to as an authority of the highest respectability and character, respecting the true principles and construction of that instrument. The system of revenue adopted under General Washington, was also the work of this distinguished financier; and so nearly perfect was it found to be in practice, amidst all the changes and violence of party, and under the administration of those individuals who were originally opposed to its adoption, that they severally found it necessary, when placed at the head of the government, to pursue the system which he had devised. Even Mr. Jefferson himself, during the eight years that he held the office of chief magistrate, never ventured to adopt a new system of finance, but adhered, in all its essential particulars, to that devised by Hamilton. And yet, from the moment he came into the executive department of the government, and was associated with Hamilton and others in establishing the principles of the constitution, it appears, by his own evidence, that lie was endeavoring to destroy the reputation and influence of that great statesman, by secret slanders, and insidious suggestions against his political integrity and orthodoxy. The article from which the foregoing citations are taken, was not written at the moment - it was not the record of events as they occurred from day to day: it bears date in 1818-nearly thirty years after most of those events took place, and fourteen years after General Hamilton had been consigned to the tomb. A more extraordinary instance of vindictive, personal, or political hostility, probably cannot be mentioned.

This work, however, has not been undertaken with the view of vindicating the character of General Hamilton from the aspersions of Mr. Jefferson. That duty devolves on others; and it is a gratification to know that the task is in a fair way to be performed by those, who, it is presumed, will see that it is done faithfully. Mr. Jefferson's "Writings" have been referred to for the purpose of showing his original dislike of the constitution, his opposition to the most important measures of the government at its first organization, and his inveterate hostility to the most able, upright and disinterested expounders of the constitution. Among these was Alexander Hamilton. The mode of attack upon this distinguished individual, and equally distinguished public benefactor, was no less insidious than it was unjust and calumnious. It was to represent him not only as unfriendly to the constitution, in the formation and adoption of which he was one of the intelligent, active, and influential agents, but as a monarchist-an enemy to republicanism itself. In the quotations which have already been made from his "Ana," he says General Hamilton was not only a monarchist, but for a monarchy bottomed on corruption." And he professes to repeat declarations of a similar kind, made openly by General Hamilton at a dinner party, when Mr. Jefferson himself was present. Assertions of this kind, unsupported by any other evidence than his own declarations, are not worthy of credit. General Hamilton was too well acquainted with Mr. Jefferson's feeling toward him, and of his disposition to undermine and destroy him, thus voluntarily and unnecessarily to place himself in his power. In some instances, in the course of his "Ana," other names are introduced as corroborating witnesses in support of some of the charges against General Hamilton. It is difficult to disprove posthumous testimony by positive evidence, especially when the parties, as well as the witnesses, are in their graves; but several of the individuals, named by Mr. Jefferson as the persons from whom he derived a knowledge of the conversations and declarations of General Hamilton, will add no strength to the evidence; they are not worthy of belief in a case of this kind.

That General Hamilton was an enemy to the very nature of the government, in the formation of which he had assisted so zealously and so faithly, in procuring the adoption of which he had labored with as much talent, and with as much effect, as any other man in the United States, and in developing and establishing the great principles of which, his exertions were inferior to those of no other individual, will not at this late period be credited.

That Mr. Jefferson wished, by secret measures, and a train of artful and insidious means, to destroy his great rival, no person acquainted with his history, conduct, and character, can doubt. It comported with his policy to lay the charge of monarchical feelings and sentiments against him, because his object was to avail himself of the prejudices of the people against Great Britain, which the war of independence had excited, and which time had not allayed, to raise himself to popularity and power. When the French revolution had advanced far enough to enlist the feelings of a portion of our countrymen in their favour, on the ground that the nation was endeavoring to throw off a despotism, and establish a republican government, another portion of them considered the principles they avowed, and the course they pursued, as dangerous to the very existence of civilized society. Mr. Jefferson declares in his "Ana," as above quoted, that he "had left France in the first year of her revolution, in the fervor of natural rights and zeal for reformation." His devotion to those rights, he says, " could not be heightened, but it had been aroused and excited by daily exercise. Accordingly he became, at a very early period, the leader of the party in this country, who, in the utmost warmth of feeling, espoused the cause of revolutionary France. To render himself the more conspicuous, he found it expedient to stigmatize those who entertained different sentiments from himself, as the enemies of republicanism, and of course, as the friends of monarchy. The meaning of this charge was, that they were the friends of Great Britain and the British government. Hence proceeded the charges of a monarchical propensity in Mr. Adams and General Hamilton, specimens of which have been already adduced. But it was soon found necessary to go greater lengths than this. To pave the way for a gradual attempt to undermine the popularity of General Washington, and to shake the public confidence in his patriotism and integrity, a similar effort was made to involve him in a similar accusation The plan adopted to accomplish this object, was to represent him as having a bias toward Great Britain, and against France. If Mr. Jefferson, who had espoused the side of revolutionary France, could succeed in making the country believe that General Washington had taken sides with Great Britain against France, in the great controversy that was then convulsing Europe, it would follow almost as a necessary consequence, that he would be considered as the enemy of freedom, and the friend of monarchical government. In his correspondence, published since his death, there is the following letter:

To P. MAZZET.

Monticello, April 24, 1796.

DEAR FRIEND; The aspect of our politics has wonderfully changed since you left us. In place of that noble love of liberty and republican government which carried us triumphantly through the war, an Anglican monarchical and aristocratical party has sprung up, whose avowed object is to draw over us the substance, as they have already done the forms, of the British government. The main body of our citizens, however, remain true to their republican principles: the whole landed interest is republican, and so is a great mass of talents. Against us are the EXECUTIVE, the judiciary, two out of three branches of the legislature, all the officers of the government, all who want to be officers, all timid men who prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty, British merchants, and Americans trading on British capitals, speculators and holders in the banks and public funds, a contrivance invented for the purposes of corruption, and for assimilating us in all things to the rotten as well as the sound parts of the British model. It would give you a fever were I to name to you the apostates who have gone over to these heresies, men who were Samsons in the field and Solomons in the council, but who have had their heads shorn by the harlot England. In short, we are likely to preserve the liberty we have obtained only by unremitting labors and perils. But we shall preserve it; and our mass of weight and wealth on the good side is so great, as to leave no danger that force will ever be attempted against us. We have only to awake, and snap the Lilliputian cords with which they have been entangling us during the first sleep which succeeded our labors."

When this letter first appeared in the United States, it was in the following form:

"Our political situation is prodigiously changed since you left us. Instead of that noble love of liberty, and that republican government which carried us through the dangers of the war, an anglo-monarchic-aristocratic party has arisen. Their avowed object is, to impose on us the substance, as they have already given us the form, of the British government. Nevertheless, the principal body of our citizens remain faithful to republican principles, as also the men of talents. We have against us (republicans) the executive power, the judiciary, (two of the three branches of our government,) all the officers of government, all who are seeking for offices, all timid men, who prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty, the British merchants, and the Americans who trade on British capitals, the speculators, persons interested in the bank, and public funds. [Establishments invented with views of corruption, and to assimilate us to the British model in its worst parts.] I should give you a fever, if I should name the apostates who have embraced these heresies, men who were Solomons in council, and Samsons in combat, but whose hair has been cut off by the whore England.
"They would wrest from us that liberty which we have obtained by so much labor and peril; but we shall preserve it. Our mass of weight and riches are so powerful, that we have nothing to fear from any attempt against us by force. It is sufficient that we guard ourselves, and that we break the Lilliputian ties by which they have bound us, in the first slumbers which have succeeded our labors. It suffices that we arrest the progress of that system of ingratitude and injustice toward France, from which they would alienate us, to bring us under British influence."

It may easily be imagined, that the appearance of this extraordinary article in the United States, was calculated to disturb the feelings of Mr. Jefferson. Such an attack as it contained on the character of General Washington, as well as upon his coadjutors, could not pass unnoticed; and it obviously placed the writer of it in a perplexing and inextricable dilemma. Accordingly, in a letter addressed to Mr. Madison, dated August 3d, 1797, he thus unbosomed himself:

"The variety of other topics the day I was with you, kept out of sight the letter to Mazzei imputed to me in the papers, the general substance of which is mine, though the diction has been considerably altered and varied in the course of its translations from French into Italian, from Italian into French, and from French into English. I first met with it at Bladensburg, and for a moment conceived I must take the field of the public papers. I could not disavow it wholly, because the greatest part was mine in substance, though not in form. I could not avow it as it stood, because the form was not mine, and, in one place, the substance was very materially falsified. This, then, would render explanations necessary; nay, it would render proofs of the whole necessary, and draw me at length into a publication of all (even the secret) transactions of the administration, while I was of it; and embroil me personally with every member of the executive and the judiciary, and with others still. I soon decided in my own mind to be entirely silent. I consulted with several friends at Philadelphia, who, every one of them, were clearly against my avowing or disavowing, and some of them conjured me most earnestly to let nothing provoke me to it. I corrected, in conversation with them, a substantial misrepresentation in the copy published. The original has a sentiment like this, (for I have it not before me,) They are endeavoring to submit us to the substance, as they already have to the forms of the British government; meaning by forms, the birthdays, levees, processions to parliament, inauguration pomposities, &c. But the copy published says, 'as they have already submitted us to the form of the British,' &c.; making me express hostility to the form of our government, that is to say, to the constitution itself; for this is really the difference of the word form, used in singular or plural, in that phrase, in the English language. Now it would be impossible for me to explain this publicly, without bringing on a personal difference between General Washington and myself; which nothing before the publication of this letter has ever done. It would embroil me also with all those with whom his character is still popular, that is to say, with nine-tenths of the United States; and what good would be obtained by avowing the letter with the necessary examinations? Very little, indeed, in my opinion, to counterbalance a good deal of harm. From my silence in this instance, it cannot be inferred that I am afraid to own the general sentiments of the letter. If I am subject to either imputation, it is to avowing such sentiments too frankly both in private and public, often when there is no necessity for it, merely because I disdain every thing like duplicity. Still, however, I am open to conviction. Think for me on the occasion, and advise me what to do, and confer with Colonel Monroe on the subject."

This letter, take which version of it we may, discloses the secret of Mr. Jefferson's policy. It was to represent the federal party as monarchists, and aristocrats, enemies to republicanism, and therefore devoted to the interests of Great Britain, and hostile to those of France. No man ever understood more perfectly the effect of names upon the minds of partisans, than this great champion of modern republicanism; and hence he informs his friend Mazzei, that the Federalists were a body of Monarchic-Aristocrats, and himself and his friends were Republicans.

Nobody will be surprised to find, that the publication of his letter in the newspapers of the United States, gave Mr. Jefferson uneasiness. The man who had the hardihood to accuse General Washington with being an aristocrat and a monarchist, and particularly, with being devoted to British influence and interests, must have possessed a degree of mental courage not often found in the human constitution. And it is perfectly apparent that this was the circumstance which so greatly embarrassed him, when determining the important question whether it would be most for his own advantage to come before the public, and endeavour to explain away the obvious meaning of his letter, or to observe a strict, and more prudent silence and leave the world to form their own conclusions. He finalIy resolved on the latter, making his explanations only to his confidential friends, and leaving them in such a form, that they might pass, with his other posthumous works, to future generations.

A little attention to the subject will show, that he adopted the most prudent course. Mr. Jefferson's attempt to give a different meaning to his own language, is entirely unsatisfactory. In the letter, as first published in the newspapers, it is said - "Our political situation is prodigiously changed since you left us." In the version of it in his posthumous works, it is - "The aspect of our politics has wonderfully changed since you left us." Not having the original, either in Italian or French, it is not practicable at this time to say which is most correct. But there is a material difference between the expressions "Our political condition," and "the aspect of our politics." The first has an immediate and obvious reference to the situation of the country at large, as connected with the general government, and the character of that government; the other relates merely to the measures of the government. The first, if in any degree to be deplored, must be considered as permanent; the last, as referring to mere legislative acts, which in their nature were transitory. The next sentence shows, conclusively, that it was the character of the government, and not merely its measures, that were alluded to. "Instead of that noble love of liberty, and that republican government, which carried us through the dangers of the war, an Anglo-Monarchic-Aristocratic party has arisen." The "republican government which carried us through the dangers of the war," was the "old confederation," as it is usually called. The change that had taken place was in the system of government - in the substitution of something else in the place of the confederation. By turning back to Mr. Jefferson's letter to Mr. Adams, dated November 13th, 1787, we shall find him using the following language - "How do you like our new constitution? I confess there are things in it which stagger all my dispositions to subscribe to what such an assembly has proposed." He then enumerates several objections, and says" I think all the good of this new constitution might have been couched in three or four new articles to be added to the good, old, and venerable fabric, which should have been preserved even as a religions relique." It is obvious, therefore, that his affections were placed on the "good, old" confederation; and when he complains of the prodigious alteration that had taken place in our political condition since Mr. Mazzei had left us, he must have had reference to the new constitution.

This is further manifest from the language which immediately follows. He declares in the letter as first published, that the "avowed object of the party to which he has alluded, is, to impose on us the substance, as they have already given us the form of the British government." In the letter as published in his works, he blends the two sentences together, and after mentioning the Anglo party, varies the passage above quoted, by saying - "whose avowed object is to draw over us the substance, as they have already done the forms, of the British government." The British government consists of three estates - a hereditary monarchy, a hereditary House of Peers, and an elective House of Commons or in other words, of King, Lords, and Commons. Our government consists of a President, Senate, and... (continued in Issue the Eleventh).

reprinted from 'The Family Christian Almanac,

published in 1864 by The American Tract Society

A Touchtone

By this one mark you may know whether the sins of your lives, be they great or small, are certain proofs of an unconverted heart or not. In every truly converted man, the main bent of his heart and life is against sin, and his chief desire and endeavor are to destroy it. In others it is not so. Whatever kind of sinning therefore is inconsistent with such a desire and endeavor, will prove that man to be unconverted and graceless who commits it. How far a man's sin is with or against the predominant bent of his own heart and life, he may discern by diligent observation. Baxter.

The Sin of the church Today

If asked to point out the sin of the church in the present day, we cannot hesitate to say that it is a pervading worldliness of mind, heart, and conduct. It is not only in the way of doing business that this is seen, but in the general habits and tastes of professing Christians. Their style of living, their associations, their amusements, their conversation, show a minding of earthly things, a disposition to conform to prevailing fashions, and an apparent desire to seek their hapiness from objects of sense rather than from those of faith, which prove the extent to which a secular spirit is bearing down the spirit of piety, and breaking up those distinctions whereby believers are known as that "peculiar people whose God is the Lord. Jay.

News From Home ...

Reprinted from The Kanzas News published during the years 1850-1870

Saturday, September 29, 1860

Simple Preaching

A reporter of the Christian Intelligencer, writing from Saratoga, speaks as follows:

"One of the most delightful acquaintances I have formed at the Springs this season was Judge McLean, of United States Court. I was specially interested in his criticisms on preaching. "We want," said he, "more simple, practical sermons--right to the conscience--made lively by Scripture, history and incidents. I like an occasional anecdote, if well put; for our Savior spoke in parables. But I cannot abide dry, abstract discussions, or cold homilies.-- Preaching should be piquant and popular, and suited to 'common people.'

Saturday, June 30, 1860

The Madison (Iowa) Plaindealer says that a poor miserable wretch living near Farmington, in Van Buren county, while horribly blaspheming God, on Sunday last, for withholding rain from his suffering crops, was suddenly struck with palsy, and almost immediately, expired.

Saturday, October 27, 1860

It is the opinion of the doctor that the lawyer gets his living by plunder, while the lawyer thinks the doctor gets his by 'pill-age.'

Issue the Eleventh

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

The Dreaded Scott Decision...

Land vs. Real Property, Part One...

A Message to The Postmaster-General ...

Thomas Jefferson: Friend or Foe, Part Three...

Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God...

The Long Road Out of Commerce...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

The Dreaded Scott Decision

by The Staff of the Christian Jural Society News

Note: This article is designed to complement and supplement the article by John Joseph in last month's News, entitled "Sanford v. The Justices of Maine."

Recently, a Reader in Northern California gave us some very interesting cites from a book called: "Looking for America: The People's History." By Stanley I. Kutler, Volume 1, to 1865. Published by Canfield Press, San Francisco.

The cites are manumission papers filed in various Virginia courts, wherein, black people freed black slaves they owned.

Wait a minute! One black man owns a black slave, and sets him free? Yes, that is precisely what the sources say, which, of course, is contrary to the modern view of history. Further, there are several such manumission papers cited in the work - from a black slave-owners to their black slaves.

There is even a case where a black woman manumits her black slave. Imagine that, a woman owning property - in those days - and the property happens to be a man, no less. This is certainly contrary to modern experts view of history.

But, the bombshell is, the cites are writs found in the court records of Virginia. What??? In a Southern state??? You heard right, in Virgina.

One manumission paper reads as follows:

"John Updike to Reuben Rhenalds.
Know all men by these presents that I John Updike (a free man of color) of the town of Petersburg in the State of Virginia have manumitted, emancipated, and set free, and do by these presents manumit, emancipate, and set free a certain Negro man named Rheuben Rhenalds, lately purchased by me from Shadrach Brander, so that the said Rheuben Rhenalds shall be and remain free from this time henceforth forever. In testimony whereof, I have hereto set my hand and affixed my seal and delivered to the said Rheuben Rhenalds this his deed of emancipation this 17th day of November, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-one."
John Updike

!!! That's pre-Civil War 1831 !!!

There are several key elements of this cite that are relevant to the infamous blasphemy of the Dred Scot decision. First, note the slave owner is as a 'free man,' not freeman. The term 'free man,' is not the same as freeman, or freedman, both of which mean a former slave or bondperson.

Second, note that the cite specifically says that the slave owner is not just a free man but, a 'free man of color,' not negro, black, or African. Further, in other cites (pg. 303) involving 'free persons of color' freeing their black slaves, such slave owners are also styled as 'people of color,' 'persons of color,' or a man or woman 'of color.'

Thus, free black people, persons, men, or women, who owned property, that may include slaves, who were free inhabitants, were denoted by the phrase 'of color.' Whether 'of color' applied to free inhabitants who were yellow or red, is not yet confirmed in our research.

Third, note that the black slave was called a 'Negro slave.' The word 'Negro' was used in all these cites when referring to the slave.

Clearly, in some state laws there was a distinct difference between the way black people were referred to in the law, based upon whether they were free inhabitants, or slaves.

Is there another source wherein this same analysis holds, i.e., in court cases? Sure enough, in 44 Maine 505, we find a number of statements to support the notes we have made above.

The case came up after the infamous Dred Scott case. It was heard at the specific request of the Senate of Maine, to determine if free colored persons of African descent had a right to vote in Maine as they had been doing all along - before Dred Scott vs. Sanford.

The Maine case is key for a variety of reasons.

First, it details the fact that prior to the Constitution, while the states were still under the Articles of Confederation, most state constitutions made no specific reference to a distinction between people of color and everyone else, while some states did make such distinctions.

This was true in both the North and the South. Thus, a free inhabitant was a free inhabitant in every sense of the word, without regard to their skin color. But, after the Constitution for the united States became effective, several states made changes to their state constitutions that did make distinctions between people of color and whites.

Such states were found both in the North and the South. Thus, in the orginal constitutions of New York (1777), New Jersey (1776), and Maryland (1776), North Carolina (1776) voting law was general and liberal towards all. But, after the Constitution for the united States was passed, these same states amended their constitutions with respect to people of color.

In New York (1821), New Jersey (1844), and Maryland (1801) and in other states, this was the case. Maryland and North Carolina, however, in its amendments of 1801 and 1835 respectively, excluded non-whites from voting.

The reasons for these changes are not clear, except for the fact that many states were beginning to worry that the Federal power may be over-stepping its boundaries in matters of state jurisdiction, especially in the light of the growing abolitionist movements that were springing up. States that excluded people of color may have done so as a reaction to these events.

But, Maine came into the union after the Constitution was adopted, in 1820, before which it was a part of Massachusetts. In the debate over the Constitution of Maine, the color issue was raised and rejected.

In these debates, a Mr. Holmes summed up the position against provisions regarding color when he said;

" ... I know of no difference between the rights of the negro and the white man; God Almighty has made none - our declaration of rights has made none. That declares that 'all men' (without regard to colors) 'are born equally free and independent.'"

At any rate, 44 Maine 505, in the majority opinion says:

"Free colored male persons, of African descent, of the age of twenty-one years and upwards, having a residence established in some town or plantation in this state three months next preceding any election, and who are not paupers, aliens, nor persons under guardianship, are authorized under the provisions of the constitution of this state, to be electors for governor, senators, and representatives."

This view of things was supported by five of the courts seven justices. Another justice, also in favor of the elective rights of people of color also wrote an extended opinion in support of the majority opinion.

Only one justice in the Supreme Court of Maine wrote in defense of a contrary view, but, he was the only justice who supported a denial of the elective right for people of color.

The point is, there was a distinct difference between free inhabitants who were black, and negro slaves, and this distinction was clear in the Maine case and in other state constitutions.

Because of this distinction, people of color were viewed as citizens who could vote and hold all the other rights of suffrage, etc..

Now, compare the Maine case with what was said in Dred Scott v. Sanford, wherein, we find Chief Justice Taney saying the following in the case summary at the beginning of the decision.

"4. A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a 'citizen' within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.
5. When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its 'people or citizens.' Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. And not being 'citizens' within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction in such a suit."

First, note that Taney uses the phrase 'free negro' when referring to black people, a term not used in any of the state laws that we have seen on the elective rights of the states citizens.

Second, he says that such 'free negroes' are not a 'citizen,' again, in spite of clear evidence to the contrary.

Third, Taney says that when the Constitution was adopted, 'they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its 'people or citizens.'

It is clear from the evidence in the Maine case that they were regarded as members of the community which constituted the State.

In other words, all three of Taney's statements in the above are patently false on the basis of clear evidence to the contrary that he must have known about, because the evidence was seen in all the state's constitutions that are mentioned in 44 Maine, 505.

Note also, that Taney blurs the distinction between free inhabitants 'of color' and the word 'negro' which was applied almost exclusively to slaves.

Now, it has been the practice of the Supreme Court to take into account state laws, customs and usages, from the inception of such Court. Yet, Taney makes no mention of the many states whose laws, customs, and usages were contrary to his view of things.

There are many people today, who decry the Supreme Court's practice of legislating from the bench, but, Taney's decision and reasoning here are clear evidence that such a practice has been going on far longer than most people believe.

Next, there is the problem of the Court's ruling on 'political questions,' which the Court has sought to distance itself from.

Thus, it is now, and has been the practice of the Supreme Court to steer clear of cases involving what are deemed to be political questions. This is the reasoning of the Supreme Court each time someone tries to bring up the un-constitutionality of the 14th Amendment. They refuse to rule on such matters time and again, because such a challenge is deemed by the Court to be a 'political question.'

Of course, the Supreme Court has also said that the 14th Amendment has been law too long to do away with now, short of a Constitutional Amendment. In fact, the whole modern infra-structure of the corporate federal, state, county, and city governments would collapse without the underpinnings of the 14th Amendment.

To put it bluntly, the entire humanistically based, military government that now is, would cease to have any pretense of a right to exist, if the 14th Amendment was done away with.

But, as we have pointed out elsewhere, what the Supreme Court says, really doesn't matter, because it has been a captive instrument of the Commander-in-Chief since the Merriman decision in 1863.

But, be that as it may, the Maine case is significant for at least one other reason. Because it gives evidence that states in both the North and South would, when ever they sought to do so, contradict and even defy the decisions of the Supreme Court.

Thus, the Maine case is evidence that there was not only discontent in the South with the government in Washington, D.C., but in the North as well.

The Maine case was one more reason justifying A. Lincoln's usurpation of power in 1860-61. Without the military arm of the federal government to call upon, it is evident that given a few more years, the United States government would have ceased to exist as we now know it.

Only by wielding massive military power against the States in the bloodiest war this nation and its people have ever been involved in, could the entity that was the Federal Government survive.

The Dred Scott decision, as specious and contrived as it is, was sufficient justification for everything the abolitionists, Lincoln, and the Northern states wanted, to start the War Against All States, create a new form of government, and suppress all resistance in the States.

We must ask ourselves why the Constitution was so inadequate to fulfil the purposes for which it was designed?

The answer is, it was fully sufficient to do the job for which it was designed so long as - and only so long as - the people of states were consistently and self-consciously Christian.

When Christian teaching began to die after the genocide of The Black Brigade, it was totally inadequate to meet the exigencies of a growing nation and torrent of immigrants that flooded into the land.

Only a full-orbed faith in Christ in which His Law is absolute in all areas of life, can any nation exist without a military force to govern it.

The only alternatives are then, Christ or the gun.

There are many today who are calling for a new Constitutional convention, as if amending a piece of 'mere parchment' were the answer.

Assuming the military power that now resides in Washington , D.C., were to permit such a convention to take place (and there is every reason to believe that they would not), what can possibly result from such a convention except an even greater abomination, so long as the Christians in this land are so perverted in their understanding and knowledge of the Scripture and the nature and purpose of civil government as God has given it to us in His Word???

The whole point of the effort here at The Christian Jural Society News is not merely to inform, or educate, but to promote and support in every possible way, the fostering of a reconstructed view of Christian civil government.

This is why we promote and propagate information on Christian Jural Societies.

Without a full-orbed Christianity, in which the Law Word of Jesus Christ and the Scripture is applied - without compromise - to every area of life - including civil government - then we will find Ourselves in short order, in a new era of darkness and tyranny that is unprecedented in the world's history, and the Dark Ages will be upon us, the Christians of the 21st Century.

Land vs. Real Property

Many inquiries have been made recently about "land," and what the King's Men plan on doing about recovering it. First, it is not the responsibility of the King's Men to solve every Christian's problems. That has already been done by God through Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. What follows is the theory of the case regarding the status quo of most of the titles today. All of what is said here applies to all Christians. Read, know and understand 44 Maine 505 for the rest of this story, because God is no respecter of persons.

This article follows closely the Scriptural battle plan: The time is now for all Good and Lawful Christian Men to claim their Inheritance, because;

"But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Lk 12:48;

and,

"It is not our duty to leave wealth to our children; but it is our duty to leave [Christian] liberty to them. No infamy, iniquity, or cruelty, can exceed our own, if we, born and educated in a country of freedom, entitled to its blessings, and knowing their value, pusillanimously deserting the post assigned us by Divine Providence, surrender succeeding generations to a condition of wretchedness, from which no human efforts, in all probability, will be sufficient to extricate them." Principles and Acts of the Revolution (1822), H. Niles, editor;

"Look forward also to distant posterity. Figure to yourselves millions and millions to spring from your loins, who may be born freemen or slaves, as Heaven shall now approve or reject your councils. Think, that on you it may depend, whether this great country, in ages hence, shall be filled and adorned with a virtuous and inlightened people, enjoying Liberty and all its comcomitant blessings, together with the Religion of Jesus, as it flows uncorrupted from his holy oracles; or covered with a race of men more contemptible than the savages that roam the wilderness." Rev. Provost Smith, in a sermon given in 1775.

We must start by executing the Testament of Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, for a testament is of no effect without execution:

"If you love Me, keep My Commandments: Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you;
All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth;
And I say also unto thee, That thou art [Your Name], and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I [have given] unto thee [Your Name] the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven;
Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you [Your Name];
first bind the [evil] strong man;
And then spoil the house in which the changers of money sit and drive them all out of the temple [government seat, and your heart], pour out the changers' money, and overthrow their tables [benches, banks]; and tell them 'take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise [commerce--walking with Mercurius]';
then, "Occupy till I come";
"Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."
"Then judgment shall dwell in the wilderness, and righteousness remain in the fruitful field. And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever." Isa. 32:16;
so: "That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all." Brother Paul's Letter to our Brothers at Ephesus, 1:17-23.
"To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." Brother Peter's First Letter, 5:11.

The basis of this argument is found in the following Scriptural references:

"And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Unto these the land shall be divided for an inheritance according to the number of names. To many thou shalt give the more inheritance, and to few thou shalt give the less inheritance: to every one shall his inheritance be given according to those that were numbered of him. Notwithstanding the land shall be divided by lot: according to the names of the tribes of their fathers they shall inherit. According to the lot shall the possession thereof be divided between many and few." Num 26:52-56.
"So shall not the inheritance of the children of Israel remove from tribe to tribe: for every one of the children of Israel shall keep himself to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers.Neither shall the inheritance remove from one tribe to another tribe; but every one of the tribes of the children of Israel shall keep himself to his own inheritance." Num 35:7 & 9. [You shall not put your inheritance in the hands of the priesthood of government.]
"The priests the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel: they shall eat the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and his inheritance. Therefore shall they have no inheritance among their brethren: the LORD is their inheritance, as he hath said unto them." De 17:1-2.

Probably the largest misconception in the Law Reform movement concerns what constitutes title. We are so deluged with paper, certificates, and the like--all which evidence commercial activity or nature of the item described on them--but none of these are evidence of any thing outside the venue of the lex mercatoria, the law merchant. They are not evidence of title in Law. They are simply rebuttable, because in Law they are defective. This is the reason for "title insurance." Now, take careful note of what constitutes true title in Law:

"250. Title is the means by which the ownership of real property [or land] is acquired and held. This is either:
"(a) By descent, or
"(b) By purchase.
"The fact which in any case gives or creates ownership over real property [or land] is called title. Title signifies the manner in which estates and interests in land are acquired. At the beginning of real property law in any country there must be an original acquisition of title to land. After title has been thus acquired all subsequent acquisitions of title to the same land must be by transfer of the title.
"Descent and Purchase.
"All titles are said to be acquired by descent or by purchase. Purchase means more than mere buying, it includes acquisition of title by devise or by gift. In short title by purchase means title acquired in all ways except by descent." Hopkins on Real Property (1896), p. 399. [Emphasis added.]

Please take notice of those two key words italicized in the above definition of title--manner and means. These two words are key to establishing superior title in Law--not the piece of paper purporting to be "title." But what does all this have to do with my "real property" or "real estate"? Let us look at some words We see bandied about, like "real estate":

"REAL ESTATE is a compound that has no proper place in the language of every day life, where it is a pretentious intruder from the technical province of law." White, Words and their Uses (1889), p. 150.
"PHARISEE. PROP., Pharisaeus, FIG., pietatus simulator; or, if necessary, Pharisaeus." Riddle, English-Latin Lexicon (1849), p. 512. [Emphasis added.]
"FICTUS (finctus, T.) adj., [P. of fingo], feigned, fictitious, false: si vanum aut finctumst, T: in amicitia nihil fictum est: in re ficta (opp. In vera): imago, O.: di: vox, falsehood, O.: in rebus fictis gemitus, O.: ficto pectore fatur, V.--Of a person: pro bene sano fictum vocamus, false, H." C. T. Lewis, Elementary Latin Dictionary (1891), p. 324.

Now let us look at Scripture about pretentious intruders:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber." Jn 10:1.

Pharisees, thieves, "real estate" speculators, and robbers have a language all their own. That language has infected our own so that We are now learning what should have been Ours. The words now have the meaning of those used by thieves and robbers. Now what does all this have to do with your "real property?" Just about everything. Notice the difference between "land" and "property":

"The word 'property' when applied to land embraces all titles, legal or equitable, perfect, or imperfect." Teschmacher v. Thompson, 18 Cal. 11.

"Land" is not "real property" nor "real estate." "What?!?!?!?! But, but, but" Land is:

"Land in its legal signification has an indefinite extent upward." Lux v. Haggin, 69 C. 255, 392, 4 P. 919, 10 P. 674.

Did you ever hear this from your local shyster, "real estate" agent, philosopher, or minister? "Property" then is a form of title, which could either be perfect [absolute] or imperfect [artificium]. But perfect [absolute] or imperfect [artificium] against whom? This the key question that has never been answered. In deed, it can only be answered in reference to the venue in which the title sits. In other words situs both of the character of the owner of property and where the title sits is everything. These two factors determine the quality and character of the title.

"Real property" then is your interest or right in the land, but remember, this is qualified or conditional, and not absolute. The means or manner by which you, "in character," acquire any object determines the quality of the right or interest you acquire in the object.

Much has been said in the past about "land patents" issued by the federal government. Well, I suppose they could be valid, but they pre-suppose that the federal government had the absolute title to convey. A patent does not establish the fact that the government had title at all. See Musser v. McRea, 38 Minn. 409. So that the patent itself is open to collateral attack the same as any other muniment which purports to convey possessory rights. See Winter v. Jones, 10 Ga. 190. So patents themselves are not the answer, either. They are merely more pieces of paper which get in the way of entering the Kingdom of God. Paper is not title.

Today's property titles are resurrected from the old Roman system, which recognized bona fide use and enjoyment, but title or control remained in the State.

(To be continued next month)

A Message to The Postmaster-General

by Bruce Alan

The following is a letter written this month by Bruce Alan of Washington state, to The Postmaster-General in Washington city. We commend Bruce Alan for his perseverance and exactness in addressing this situation. This letter is one that should be studied and understood by all who read it and we recommend that those who are having similar problems with General Delivery follow the lead of Bruce Alan with a letter of similar form and content.

Marvin Runyon
Postmaster-General
Post Office Department

Dear Sir:

I am addressing you in your capacity as the Postmaster-General of The Post Office Department. As a Good and Lawful Christian, my traditionally vested right in General Delivery has been repeatedly denied to me by the Postal Service. As stated in the Domestic Mail Manual (D930), General Delivery is intended for use primarily at: c. Any post office to serve transients and customers not permanently located. The Domestic Mail Manual also states that Postmasters may restrict the use of general delivery by customers. The Postal Service has no legal authority to restrict the use of General Delivery to transients. I have maintained my status as transient at every opportunity when talking to employees of the Postal Service. Every person I have talked to at the Postal Service refuses to recognize my status and most of the time they refuse to talk to me, period.

I would like you to know what I have been going through and how I have been treated by the Postal Service. The Postmaster, of the Carlsborg Post Office, accused me of being an anti-government person (at the front desk in front of other people waiting in line) because I did not wish to use a zip code as part of the address on a letter I was mailing. After receiving my postal matter at General Delivery for approximately six months, without ever being required to show identification, I was told by the Postmaster that I could no longer receive mail at General Delivery. I was told that General Delivery was only temporary and my time limit was up. I asked for the regulations that gave her the authority to deny me General Delivery and she said that she did not have the time. I then showed her a copy of the Domestic Mail Manual and asked her to show me where it stated that General Delivery is only temporary. As she looked over the copy of the Domestic Mail Manual I had presented her with, she noticed that General Delivery customers can be required to present suitable identification before mail is given to them. She immediately asked to see some identification from me and I replied, "I am not a customer. I am a transient and only customers may be required." To this day I have been repeatedly denied General Delivery mail because I maintain my venue as transient and therefore not required to show identification. I was well known to the Postmaster and the clerks.

Since the Postmaster at the Carlsborg Post Office refused to give me mail or any written documentation for her actions against me, I tried to contact the Postmaster-General's office in Washington city, District of Columbia and could only get person in the Postal Service named Mickey Moriary at 202-268-2000. She told me that General Delivery was only temporary and she referred to the Firm Holdouts section of the Domestic Mail Manual where it states the postmaster may cancel firm holdout service when mail volume falls below the 50-piece requirement on each delivery day over a 30-day period. I asked her how regulations on firm holdouts can be used to regulate General Delivery, but she would not elaborate. This is a clear and obvious attempt by the Postal Service to mislead and deceive the public. This kind of behavior is an abuse of power and is therefore a public nuisance.

The manager of the Postal Service in Seattle called me a week or two later, his name is Terry Hagel at 206-417-6097, saying that he had heard that I was having a problem at the Post Office in Carlsborg. He alleged that General Delivery was only temporary and that they could not have everyone coming into the Post Office to get their mail because it would be too much of a burden on the clerks. I asked him where in the Domestic Mail Manual it states that General Delivery is temporary, he could not and would not tell me. I then read to him from the Domestic Mail Manual word for word the regulations for General Delivery. I explained to him that I was not a customer and maintained my venue and jurisdiction as transient. He said that that was only my opinion and if I did not like his decision then it would be a matter for the attorneys. He did agree to send me a letter with the regulations, and since I had already received mail for six months without having to show identification, he would instruct the Carlsborg Postmaster to give me the letter and any other mail that was there. Several days later he called me back to tell me I would only be allowed mail if I could show identification. I told him that I would not be able to do that and I asked him why I was getting this kind of run around. I did not get an answer to that question or any other. I told him I would not show identification until the Postal Service showed me the regulation giving them authority over transients. He would not give me any more information; that was it.

While being deprived of my mail at the Carlsborg Post Office, I went to the Sequim Post Office and was greeted very nicely. I was informed at my first visit that I did not need to fill out an application for General Delivery and that I did not need identification. This went on for a month without any problems. Then after about a week after talking to Jerry Hagel, I went to the Sequim Post Office to pick up my postal matter at General Delivery and I was told that I needed to show identification. I asked to see the Postmaster and he also said I had to show identification. I asked him if he would show me what regulation required me to show identification. He said he did not have the time and that he would make a copy and I could get it the next time I came in. I told him that only customers were required to show identification and that I was not a customer. This clearly irritated the Postmaster because he immediately stood up from his desk, walked over to me and asked me if I wanted to leave the easy way or the hard way. I elected the easy way and as I walked through the doorway, I turned and said, "God Bless you," to him, and he slammed the door.

As a Good and Lawful Christian, I must obey the Laws of Scripture, which repeatedly points out, that, as Christians, We are 'sojourners.' As a Christian I must come out and be separate from the things of this world, for my kingdom is in Heaven. I am only here for a short time, and then I will be united in the Spirit of God for everlasting more. I therefore consider myself transient; One who or that which is temporary. I can not be compelled to accept a status which disparages and falsely describes me, i.e., customer, and I can not be compelled to accept a benefit, i.e., free delivery or a Post Office Box. The use of the Post Office Department's General Delivery is a traditionally vested right which is an immediate incorporeal fixed right of present or future enjoyment established and vested by tradition and usage among Good and Lawful Christian Men and Women from time immemorial.

I hope this letter finds you in good health and Spirit. I pray you will consider this matter worthy enough for your time. I know that I am not alone in this, and many Christians around the country are going through the same hardships. We can only serve one Master and as a Christian, I must follow God's Law. There is no higher Law. This letter will be used to spread the word and wake others up to the Truth.

God Bless you and all that read these words, Bruce Alan

(continued from Issue the Tenth)

...House of Representatives-all elective, though for different periods. One objection urged, on various occasions, against the adoption of the constitution, was its resemblance, in the particulars just mentioned, to the British government. Among others, Mr. Jefferson was pointedly opposed to the re-eligibility of the executive. He compared it to the case of the king of Poland, and thought there ought to have been a provition prohibiting the re-election of any individual to that office. The people of the states, however,Concluded that their liberties would not be exposed to any imminent hazard, under a system where all the officers, executive and legislative, were elective, and they took the constitution as it was. And great as Mr. Jefferson's fears of danger to freedom were from this quarter, he eventually overcame them so far as to suffer himself to bc placed in the office of chief magistrate twice, without any apparent misgivings of mind or conscience. Now it is scarcely possible for any unbiased mind to believe, that lie had not immediate reference to this part of our constitution, when he remarked, that the Anglo- Anarchic - Aristocratic" party were endeavouring to impose upon the nation "the substance, as the~ had already given it the form, of the British government." These three cardinal branches of the British government, viz." Kings, Lords, and Commons," are all the form there is to that government. All the residue of what is called by themselves their constitution, consists of unwritten and prescriptive usages, sometimes called laws of parliament, which never were reduced to form, and certainly never were adopted in the form of a constitution.

Mr. Jefferson, in his letter to Mr. Madison, attempts to give a totally different meaning to this part of his letter. He says, "The original has a sentiment like this, (for I have it riot before me,) They arc endeavouring to submit us to the substance, as they already have to the forms, of the British government; meaning by forms, the birth-days, levees, processions to parliament, inauguration pomposities, &c. For this is really the meaning of the word form, used in the singular or plural, in that phrase, in the English language." We do not believe that any person, well acquainted with the English language, ever made use of such an awkward and senseless expression as that above cited - They are endeavouring to submit us to the substance. As Mr. Jefferson always was considered a scholar, the internal evidence derived from this singular phraseology is sufficient to warrant the conclusion that it was adopted here for the occasion.

But the application of the expression form, or even forms, of the British government, to the practise of observing birth-days, holding levees, of moving in procession to parliament, or the pomposities of inaugurations, is downright absurdity. These ceremonious customs are no part of the government, either in Great Britain, or in the United States. They may be childish, they may be pompous, they may be servile and adulatory, but they are not proceedings, either in form or substance, of the government. Nor has the word form or forms any such legitimate meaning. This explanation was doubtless contrived for future use, and not to be made public and it is not at all surprising that Mr. Jefferson found there were serious how difficulties in the way of a public exposure of his meaning, if this was all the explanation he had to give. The course he adopted, which was to observe a strict silence, was far more discreet. A more weak and unsatisfactory attempt to evade a plain and obvious difficulty has rarely been made.

The next sentence in the letter as first published is, "Nevertheless, the principal body of our citizens remain faithful to republican principles, as also the men of talents." In the letter in Mr. Jefferson's works, it stands thus "The main body of our citizens, ever, remain true to their republican principles; the whole landed interest is republican, and so is a great mass of talents." Now it may be safely said, that no mistake in translation can possibly account for the diversity that appears in these two sentences. Without noticing the difference between the first and last members of the two sentences, the expression - "the whole landed interest is republican" - is entirely wanting in the letter as first published. This must have been will- fully suppressed in the first letter, if it was in the original circumstance that is not to be credited, because no possible motive can be assigned for such an act. The inference then must be, that it was introduced into the copy left for posthumous publication, to help the general appearance of mistranslation, and to counten- ance and give plausibility to other alterations of more importance. The letter as first published, then proceeds- " We have against us (republicans) the Executive Power, the Judiciary, (two of the three branches of our government,) all the officers of government, all who are seeking for offices, all timid men, who prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty, the British merchants, and the Americans who trade on British capitals, the speculators, persons interested in the Bank and Public Funds, Establishments invented with views of corruption, and to assimilate us to the British model in its corrupt parts.] In the letter in Mr. Jefferson's works, it stands thus- "Against us are the executive, the judiciary, two out of three branches of the legislature, all the officers of government, all who want to be officers, all timid men who prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty, British merchants, and Americans trading on British capitals, speculators and holders in the banks and public funds, a contrivance invented for the purposes of corruption, and for assimilating us in all things to the rotten as well as the sound parts of the British model.

It is impossible to avoid the conclusion, that the article published in the form of a letter to Mazzei, in Mr. Jefferson's works, from which the last extract is taken, is not a correct transcript of the original, but was prepared to answer a specific purpose. No person will be persuaded that Mr. Jefferson ever called the executive and the judiciary "two out of three branches of the legislature." The language of the letter first published is correct- " two of the three branches of our government." Again he says, "speculators and holders in the banks." There was but one national bank, and reference must be made to national banks alone. The first letter has it correctly- the Bank. The fact that banks are mentioned in the last, is decisive proof that the first is the most accurate translation.

There is an expression here which is so strikingly characteristic of the author, that it ought not to pass unnoticed. Mr. Jefferson says, "We have against us republicans - all timid men who prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." In the second letter it is "the boisterous sea of liberty." It will be borne in mind, the "timid men" here spoken of, were not inhabitants of France, or England, but of these United States, then under the mild, and peaceable, and prosperous influence of the government which they had so recently adopted, and the beneficial effects of which they were then realizing in a most gratifying degree. That a man of his temperament should call such a state of things, under such a government, the calm of despotism, is not a little extraordinary. But it will be recollected, that in a letter quoted in the former part of this work, when speaking of the insurrection in Massachusetts, he said, "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion." "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."- "What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." After reading these sentiments and expressions, no person can be surprised to find that Mr. Jefferson should prefer the tumults, the distresses, and the bloodshed of insurrections, to the peace, the tranquillity, and the social happiness, which are enjoyed under a mild, beneficent, ill-regulated, and well-administered government. No man of sound mind, and virtuous principles, will envy him his choice.

But the most extraordinary expression in this letter is the declaration, that the republicans, that is, Mr. Jefferson and his political partizans, were opposed by the executive and the judiciary. When this allegation was made, and it is contained in both versions of the letter, the chief executive magistrate of the United States was GEORGE WASHINGTON. George Washington led the armies of the United States through the revolutionary war; and during the whole of that arduous and distressing conflict, discovered military skill and talents of the highest order. Under all circumstances, and in all situations, he manifested the most pure and devoted patriotism ; and after having seen his country victorious, and its independence acknowledged, even by the adversary with whom be had so brig and so successfully contended, in a manner that excited the surprise and the admiration not only of his own country, but of the civilized world, he surrendered the power with which he had been clothed, and which he had so long exercised, into the hands of those from whom he received it, and retired to private life amidst the applauses, and loaded with the gratitude and benedictions of his fellow citizens. When it was found that the government which had carried the nation through the war, was insufficient for the exigencies of peace, he again lent his whole talents and influence to the formation and adoption of a new system, better calculated for the wants, arid better suited to the promotion of the great interests of the union. As soon as that system was adopted by the nation, he was called by the spontaneous, and unanimous voice of his countrymen, to the office of chief magistrate; which call was renewed, with the same unanimity, on a second occasion; at the end of which, after having addressed his fellow citizens in a train of the warmest affection, the purest patriotism, and the most elevated political morality and eloquence, he declined being again a candidate for office, and crowned with the highest honours which a free people could confer on their most respected and revered citizen, bade a final adieu to all further active engagement in the public affairs of the government and country. The life of this great man passed without a stain. The annals of nations contain no account of a more unimpeachable character, either in military or civil life. And what adds much to the splendour of his reputation, he was as highly distinguished as a statesman, as he had previously been as a soldier. In both he was illustrious in the most exalted sense of the word; while in private life, lie was, in an exemplary degree, amiable and virtuous, beloved by his most intimate friends, and respected and venerated by an enlarged and highly respectable circle of neighbours arid acquaintance.

Such was the man who was stigmatized in this letter to a foreigner, residing in a distant quarter of the globe, as a member of an "Anglo- monarchic-aristocratic party" in this country, whose "avowed object was to impose on us the substance, as they had already given us the form, of the British government." General Washington's republicanism is here expressly denied, notwithstanding he had risked more, suffered more, and made greater exertions, to support and establish the republican character, principles, and government of his country, than any other individual in it.

After having thus attempted to fix upon General Washington the reproach of being a monarchist, and of enmity to the Constitution of the United States, Mr. Jefferson proceeds to say of the monarchical party, of which he obviously considered General Washington as the head.

They would wrest from us that liberty which we have obtained by so much labor and peril; but we shall preserve it. Our mass of weight and riches are so powerful, that we have nothing to fear from any attempt against us by force." In the letter, as published in his works, this passage stands thus : " In short, we are likely to preserve the liberty we have obtained only by unremitting labors and perils. But we shall preserve it; and our mass of weight and wealth on the good side is so great as to leave no danger that force will ever be attempted against us." In the first place, it may be again remarked, that no man, even of ordinary understanding and capacity, Will ever believe that the difference of phraseology between these two versions of this part of the letter, was caused by a mere mistake in the translation. The first implies a full expectation that force might be used to destroy our liberties . It says, "They would wrest from us that liberty," &C The second, that we are likely to preserve the liberty we have obtained," &c. without a suggestion of any attempt to wrest it from us.

The letter, however, stales the manner in which our liberties are to be preserved. It says- "It is sufficient that we guard ourselves, and that we break the Lilliputian ties by which they have bound us, in the first slumbers which have succeeded our labours." In the letter in the published works, this sentence is thus expressed- "We have only to awake and snap the Lilliputian cords with which they have been entangling us during the first step which succeeded our labors." This can be considered in no other light, than that of referring to the Constitution of the United States. It has already appeared, by the language used in a variety of instances in his letters that have been quoted, that Mr. Jefferson had strong objections to the constitution, and that in his judgment, '' all that was good in it might have been included in three or four aries," added to the old confederation. As it was, the government was too strong for his taste. The first slumbers which succeeded the labours of the country in achieving its independence, must mean the period between the peace of 1783, and the adoption of the constitution. This constitution was "the Lilliputian tie" by which the nation had been bound, while in a fit of drowsiness; but which must be broken, to insure its safety from bondage. This passage will assist the community in forming a just estimate of Mr. Jefferson's regard for the constitution, and of the government which it provided, and over which he was destined at a future day to preside. This constitution General Washington assisted in forming. He recommended it strongly to the adoption of the country; and he devoted his great talents and influence for eight years to the development of its principles, and the establishment of its operations; and was laboriously engaged in these patriotic labours at the moment when Mr. Jefferson was thus secretly calumniating his character, and impeaching his integrity; and at the same time declaring, that our liberties could only be preserved by the destruction of the constitution.

But Mr. Jefferson had still another machine to make use of in accomplishing our deliverance from the dangers with which our liberties were surrounded, and by which our freedom was threatened. "It suffices," says the letter first published, " that we arrest the progress of that system of ingratitude, and injustice towards France, from which they would alienate us, to bring us under British influence," &c.

Here is to be found the great governing principle of Mr. Jefferson's political conduct. - It was FRIENDSHIP FOR FRANCE and ENMITY TO GREAT BRITAIN. Those who did not adopt his sentiments, and pursue his system of policy, were monarchists and aristocrats; and those who agreed with him, and placed themselves under his direction and influence, were republicans.

It should he mentioned as one of the singular circumstances which attend this letter, that the sentence last quoted from it is entirely omitted in that published in the posthumous works. It would seem very strange that the person who translated Mr. Mazzci's letter, should not only have added this sentence, and then finished with an as if there had been something still further, if as Mr. Jefferson would have it understood by leaving a copy of it to be published after his death, no such sentence was in the original.

That this attack upon the reputation of General Washington, was the result of a political calculation, and intended to answer the selfish and ambitious purposes of Mr. Jefferson, cannot for a moment be doubted. It has been seen, that General Washington, at the first organization of the government, appointed him Secretary of State. Mr. Jefferson's letters, on various occasions, are full of expressions of respect and regard for General Washington. He left that office at the close of the year 1793, and retired to his residence at Monticello, in Virginia . There he wrote, in 1818, the first article in that collection of "Ana," as it now stands in his book. This, it will be observed, was more than twenty years after the date of his letter to Mazzei. In that, when speaking of General Hamilton's influence, arising from the Bank, and other measures, and alluding to his monarchical principles, he says-" Here then was the real ground of the opposition which was made to the course of his administration. Its object was to preserve the legislature pure and independent of the executive, to restrain the administration to republican forms and principles, and not permit the constitution to be construed into a monarchy, and to be warped in practice, into all the principles and pollutions of their favorite English model. Nor was this an opposition to General Washington. He was true to the republican charge confided to him; and has solemnly and repeatedly protested to me, in our conversation, that he would lose the last drop of his blood in support of it."

In the month of February, 1791, the House of Representatives of the United States passed a resolution calling on the Secretary of State [Mr. Jefferson] "to report to congress the nature and extent of the privileges and restrictions of the commercial intercourse of the United States with foreign nations, and the measures which be should think proper to be adopted for the improvement of the commerce and navigation of the same." This report was not delivered until December, 1793; and on the last day of that month Mr. Jefferson resigned his office. On the 4th of January following, the house resolved itself into a committee of the whole on the report above alluded to, "when Mr. Madison laid on the table a series of resolutions for the consideration of the members."

"These memorable resolutions," says Judge Marshall, in his Life of Washington, " almost completely embraced the idea of the report. They imposed an additional duty on the manufactures, and on the tonnage of vessels, of nations having no commercial treaty with the United States; while they reduced the duties already imposed by law on the tonnage of vessels belonging to nations having such commercial treaty; and they reciprocated the restrictions which were imposed on American navigation."

Mr. Pitkin, in his " Political and Civil History of the United States," when alluding to this subject, says,"This report of Mr. Jefferson formed the basis of the celebrated commercial resolutions, as they were called, submitted to the house by Mr. Madison early in January, 1794. The substance of the first of these resolutions was, that the interest of the United States would be promoted by further restrictions and higher duties, in certain cases, on the manufactures and navigation of foreign nations. The additional duties were to be laid on certain articles manufactured by those European nations which had no commercial treaties with the United States." The last of the resolutions declared, that provision ought to be made for ascertaining the losses sustained by American citizens, from the operation of particular regulations of any country contravening the law of nations; and that these losses be reimbursed, in the first instance, out of the additional duties on the manufactures and vessels of the nations establishing such regulations.''

A long debate ensued on these resolutions, in the course of which, Mr. Fitzsimmons, a member from Pennsylvania, moved that in their operations they should extend to all nations. The motion was met by one from Mr. Nicholas, of Virginia, the object of which was to exempt all nations from their operation except Great Britain.

"In discussing these resolutions," says Mr. Pitkin, " a wide range was taken; their political as well as commercial effects upon foreign nations, were brought into view. In the course of the debate it was soon apparent, that their political bearing was considered as the most important, particularly on that nation to which its operation was finally limited, by the motion of Mr. ~Nicholas."

Judge Marshall gives a more extended sketch of the debate. The advocates of the resolutions said, they "conceived it impracticable to do justice to the interests of the United States without some allusion to politics;" and after a long discussion of the character and effects of the resolutions, "It was denied that any real advantage was derived from the extensive credit given by the merchants of Great Britain. On the contrary the use made of British capital was pronounced a great political evil. It increased the unfavourable balance of trade, discouraged domestic manufactures, and promoted luxury. But its greatest mischief was, that it favored a system of British influence, which was dangerous to their political security."

"It was said to be proper in deciding the question under debate, to take into view political, as well as commercial considerations. Ill will and jealousy had at all times been the predominant features of the conduct of England to the United States. That government had grossly violated the treaty of peace, had declined a commercial.......

(to be continued in Issue the Twelfth)

Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God

by Jonathan Edwards

This is one of the most famous Sermons ever preached by a Pastor in America. It has inspired Christians and Condemned Humanists for over two centuries. If you are tired of modern preaching, sample some of the best from the past.

Jonathan Edwards was one of the movers and shakers during The Great Awakening which sparked the War for Christian Liberty (1776-83).

"Their foot shall slide in due time." Deuteronomy 32:35

In this verse is threatened the vengeance of God on the wicked unbelieving Israelites, who were God's visible people, and who lived under the means of grace; but who, notwithstanding all God's wonderful works towards them, remained (as ver. 28.) void of counsel, having no understanding in them. Under all the cultivations of heaven, they brought forth bitter and poisonous fruit; as in the two verses next preceding the text. The expression I have chosen for my text, Their foot shall slide in due time, seems to imply the following things, relating to the punishment and destruction to which these wicked Israelites were exposed.

1. That they were always exposed to Destruction; as one that stands or walks in slippery places is always exposed to fall. This is implied in the manner of their destruction coming upon them, being represented by their foot sliding. The same is expressed, Psalm 73:18. "Surely thou didst set them in slippery places; thou castedst them down into destruction."

2. It implies, that they were always exposed to sudden unexpected destruction. As he that walks in slippery places is every moment liable to fall, he cannot foresee one moment whether he shall stand or fall the next; and when he does fall, he falls at once without warning: Which is also expressed in Psalm 73:18, 19. "Surely thou didst set them in slippery places; thou castedst them down into destruction: How are they brought into desolation as in a moment!"

3. Another thing implied is, that they are liable to fall OF THEMSELVES, without being thrown down by the hand of another; as he that stands or walks on slippery ground needs nothing but his own weight to throw him down.

4. That the reason why they are not fallen already and do not fall now is only that God's appointed time is not come. For it is said, that when that due time, or appointed time comes, THEIR FOOT SHALL SLIDE. Then they shall be left to fall, as they are inclined by their own weight. God will not hold them up in these slippery places any longer, but will let them go; and then, at that very instant, they shall fall into destruction; as he that stands on such slippery declining ground, on the edge of a pit, he cannot stand alone, when he is let go he immediately falls and is lost.

The observation from the words that I would now insist upon is this. "There is nothing that keeps wicked men at any one moment out of hell, but the mere pleasure of God." By the MERE pleasure of God, I mean his SOVEREIGN pleasure, his arbitrary will, restrained by no obligation, hindered by no manner of difficulty, any more than if nothing else but God's mere will had in the least degree, or in any respect whatsoever, any hand in the preservation of wicked men one moment. The truth of this observation may appear by the following considerations.

1. There is no want of POWER in God to cast wicked men into hell at any moment. Men's hands cannot be strong when God rises up. The strongest have no power to resist him, nor can any deliver out of his hands. He is not only able to cast wicked men into hell, but he can most easily do it. Sometimes an earthly prince meets with a great deal of difficulty to subdue a rebel, who has found means to fortify himself, and has made himself strong by the numbers of his followers. But it is not so with God. There is no fortress that is any defense from the power of God. Though hand join in hand, and vast multitudes of God's enemies combine and associate themselves, they are easily broken in pieces. They are as great heaps of light chaff before the whirlwind; or large quantities of dry stubble before devouring flames. We find it easy to tread on and crush a worm that we see crawling on the earth; so it is easy for us to cut or singe a slender thread that any thing hangs by: thus easy is it for God, when he pleases, to cast his enemies down to hell. What are we, that we should think to stand before him, at whose rebuke the earth trembles, and before whom the rocks are thrown down?

2. They DESERVE to be cast into hell; so that divine justice never stands in the way, it makes no objection against God's using his power at any moment to destroy them. Yea, on the contrary, justice calls aloud for an infinite punishment of their sins. Divine justice says of the tree that brings forth such grapes of Sodom, "Cut it down, why cumbereth it the ground?" Luke 13:7. The sword of divine justice is every moment brandished over their heads, and it is nothing but the hand of arbitrary mercy, and God's mere will, that holds it back.

3. They are already under a sentence of CONDEMNATION to hell. They do not only justly deserve to be cast down thither, but the sentence of the law of God, that eternal and immutable rule of righteousness that God has fixed between him and mankind, is gone out against them, and stands against them; so that they are bound over already to hell. John 3:18. "He that believeth not is condemned already." So that every unconverted man properly belongs to hell; that is his place; from thence he is, John 8:23. "Ye are from beneath:" And thither he is bound; it is the place that justice, and God's word, and the sentence of his unchangeable law assign to him.

4. They are now the objects of that very same ANGER and wrath of God, that is expressed in the torments of hell. And the reason why they do not go down to hell at each moment, is not because God, in whose power they are, is not then very angry with them; as he is with many miserable creatures now tormented in hell, who there feel and bear the fierceness of his wrath. Yea, God is a great deal more angry with great numbers that are now on earth: yea, doubtless, with many that are now in this congregation, who it may be are at ease, than he is with many of those who are now in the flames of hell.

So that it is not because God is unmindful of their wickedness, and does not resent it, that he does not let loose his hand and cut them off. God is not altogether such an one as themselves, though they may imagine him to be so. The wrath of God burns against them, their damnation does not slumber; the pit is prepared, the fire is made ready, the furnace is now hot, ready to receive them; the flames do now rage and glow. The glittering sword is whet, and held over them, and the pit hash opened its mouth under them.

5. The DEVIL stands ready to fall upon them, and seize them as his own, at what moment God shall permit him. They belong to him; he has their souls in his possession, and under his dominion. The scripture represents them as his goods, Luke 11:12. The devils watch them; they are ever by them at their right hand; they stand waiting for them, like greedy hungry lions that see their prey, and expect to have it, but are for the present kept back. If God should withdraw his hand, by which they are restrained, they would in one moment fly upon their poor souls. The old serpent is gaping for them; hell opens its mouth wide to receive them; and if God should permit it, they would be hastily swallowed up and lost.

6. There are in the souls of wicked men those hellish PRINCIPLES reigning, that would presently kindle and flame out into hell fire, if it were not for God's restraints. There is laid in the very nature of carnal men, a foundation for the torments of hell. There are those corrupt principles, in reigning power in them, and in full possession of them, that are seeds of hell fire. These principles are active and powerful, exceeding violent in their nature, and if it were not for the restraining hand of God upon them, they would soon break out, they would flame out after the same manner as the same corruptions, the same enmity does in the hearts of damned souls, and would beget the same torments as they do in them. The souls of the wicked are in scripture compared to the troubled sea, Isaiah 57:20. For the present, God restrains their wickedness by his mighty power, as he does the raging waves of the troubled sea, saying, "Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further;" but if God should withdraw that restraining power, it would soon carry all before it. Sin is the ruin and misery of the soul; it is destructive in its nature; and if God should leave it without restraint, there would need nothing else to make the soul perfectly miserable. The corruption of the heart of man is immoderate and boundless in its fury; and while wicked me live here, it is like fire pent up by God's restraints, whereas if it were let loose, it would set on fire the course of nature; and as the heart is now a sink of sin, so if sin was not restrained, it would immediately turn the soul into fiery oven, or a furnace of fire and brimstone.

7. It is no security to wicked men for one moment, that there are no visible means of death at hand. It is no security to a natural man, that he is now in health, and that he does not see which way he should now immediately go out of the world by any accident, and that there is no visible danger in any respect in his circumstances. The manifold and continual experience of the world in all ages, shows this is no evidence, that a man is not on the very brink of eternity, and that the next step will not be into another world. The unseen, unthought-of ways and means of persons going suddenly out of the world are innumerable and inconceivable. Unconverted men walk over the pit of hell on a rotten covering, and there are innumerable places in this covering so weak that they will not bear their weight, and these places are not seen. The arrows of death fly unseen at noon-day; the sharpest sight cannot discern them. God has so many different unsearchable ways of taking wicked men out of the world and sending them to hell, that there is nothing to make it appear, that God had need to be at the expense of a miracle, or go out of the ordinary course of his providence, to destroy any wicked man, at any moment. All the means that there are of sinners going out of the world, are so in God's hands, and so universally and absolutely subject to his power and determination, that it does not depend at all the less on the mere will of God, whether sinners shall at any moment go to hell, than if means were never made use of, or at all concerned in the case.

8. Natural men's prudence and care to preserve their own lives, or the care of others to preserve them, do not secure them a moment. To this, divine providence and universal experience do also bear testimony. There is this clear evidence that men's own wisdom is no security to them from death; that if it were otherwise we should see some difference between the wise and politic men of the world, and others, with regard to their liableness to early and unexpected death: but how is it in fact? Ecclesiastes 2:16. "How dieth the wise man? even as the fool."

9. All wicked men's pains and CONTRIVANCE which they use to escape hell, while they continue to reject Christ, and so remain wicked men, do not secure them from hell one moment. Almost every natural man that hears of hell, flatters himself that he shall escape it; he depends upon himself for his own security; he flatters himself in what he has done, in what he is now doing, or what he intends to do. Every one lays out matters in his own mind how he shall avoid damnation, and flatters himself that he contrives well for himself, and that his schemes will not fail. They hear indeed that there are but few saved, and that the greater part of men that have died heretofore are gone to hell; but each one imagines that he lays out matters better for his own escape than others have done. He does not intend to come to that place of torment; he says within himself, that he intends to take effectual care, and to order matters so for himself as not to fail. But the foolish children of men miserably delude themselves in their own schemes, and in confidence in their own strength and wisdom; they trust to nothing but a shadow. The greater part of those who heretofore have lived under the same means of grace, and are now dead, are undoubtedly gone to hell; and it was not because they were not as wise as those who are now alive: it was not because they did not lay out matters as well for themselves to secure their own escape. If we could speak with them, and inquire of them, one by one, whether they expected, when alive, and when they used to hear about hell, ever to be the subjects of misery: we doubtless, should hear one and another reply, "No, I never intended to come here: I had laid out matters otherwise in my mind; I thought I should contrive well for myself I thought my scheme good. I intended to take effectual care; but it came upon me unexpected; I did not look for it at that time, and in that manner; it came as a thief, Death outwitted me: God's wrath was too quick for me. Oh, my cursed foolishness! I was flattering myself, and pleasing myself with vain dreams of what I would do hereafter; and when I was saying, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction came upon me."

10. God has laid himself under no OBLIGATION, by any promise to keep any natural man out of hell one moment. God certainly has made no promises either of eternal life, or of any deliverance or preservation from eternal death, but what are contained in the covenant of grace, the promises that are given in Christ, in whom all the promises are yea and amen. But surely they have no interest in the promises of the covenant of grace who are not the children of the covenant, who do not believe in any of the promises, and have no interest in the Mediator of the covenant.

So that, whatever some have imagined and pretended about promises made to natural men's earnest seeking and knocking, it is plain and manifest, that whatever pains a natural man takes in religion, whatever prayers he makes, till he believes in Christ, God is under no manner of obligation to keep him a moment from eternal destruction.

So that, thus it is that natural men are held in the hand of God, over the pit of hell; they have deserved the fiery pit, and are already sentenced to it; and God is dreadfully provoked, his anger is as great towards them as to those that are actually suffering the executions of the fierceness of his wrath in hell, and they have done nothing in the least to appease or abate that anger, neither is God in the least bound by any promise to hold them up one moment; the devil is waiting for them, hell is gaping for them, the flames gather and flash about them, and would fain lay hold on them, and swallow them up; the fire pent up in their own hearts is struggling to break out: and they have no interest in any Mediator, there are no means within reach that can be any security to them. In short, they have no refuge, nothing to take hold of; all that preserves them every moment is the mere arbitrary will, and uncovenanted, unobliged forbearance of an incensed God.

APPLICATION

The use of this awful subject may be for awakening unconverted persons in this congregation. This that you have heard is the case of every one of you that are out of Christ. That world of misery, that lake of burning brimstone, is extended abroad under you. There is the dreadful pit of the glowing flames of the wrath of God; there is hell's wide gaping mouth open; and you have nothing to stand upon, nor any thing to take hold of; there is nothing between you and hell but the air; it is only the power and mere pleasure of God that holds you up.

You probably are not sensible of this; you find you are kept out of hell, but do not see the hand of God in it; but look at other things, as the good state of your bodily constitution, your care of your own life, and the means you use for your own preservation. But indeed these things are nothing; if God should withdraw his hand, they would avail no more to keep you from falling, than the thin air to hold up a person that is suspended in it.

Your wickedness makes you as it were heavy as lead, and to tend downwards with great weight and pressure towards hell; and if God should let you go, you would immediately sink and swiftly descend and plunge into the bottomless gulf, and your healthy constitution, and your own care and prudence, and best contrivance, and all your righteousness, would have no more influence to uphold you and keep you out of hell, than a spider's web would have to stop a falling rock. Were it not for the sovereign pleasure of God, the earth would not bear you one moment; for you are a burden to it; the creation groans with you; the creature is made subject to the bondage of your corruption, not willingly; the sun does not willingly shine upon you to give you light to serve sin and Satan; the earth does not willingly yield her increase to satisfy your lusts; nor is it willingly a stage for your wickedness to be acted upon; the air does not willingly serve you for breath to maintain the flame of life in your vitals, while you spend your life in the service of God's enemies. God's creatures are good, and were made for men to serve God with, and do not willingly subserve to any other purpose, and groan when they are abused to purposes so directly contrary to their nature and end. And the world would spew you out, were it not for the sovereign hand of him who hath subjected it in hope. There are the black clouds of God's wrath now hanging directly over your heads, full of the dreadful storm, and big with thunder; and were it not for the restraining hand of God, it would immediately burst forth upon you. The sovereign pleasure of God, for the present, stays his rough wind; otherwise it would come with fury, and your destruction would come like a whirlwind, and you would be like the chaff of the summer threshing floor.

The wrath of God is like great waters that are dammed for the present; they increase more and more, and rise higher and higher, till an outlet is given; and the longer the stream is stopped, the more rapid and mighty is its course, when once it is let loose. It is true, that judgment against your evil works has not been executed hitherto; the floods of God's vengeance have been withheld; but your guilt in the mean time is constantly increasing, and you are every day treasuring up more wrath; the waters are constantly rising, and waxing more and more mighty; and there is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, that holds the waters back, that are unwilling to be stopped, and press hard to go forward. If God should only withdraw his hand from the flood-gate, it would immediately fly open, and the fiery floods of the fierceness and wrath of God, would rush forth with inconceivable fury, and would come upon you with omnipotent power; and if your strength were ten thousand times greater than it is, yea, ten thousand times greater than the strength of the stoutest, sturdiest devil in hell, it would be nothing to withstand or endure it.

The bow of God's wrath is bent, and the arrow made ready on the string, and justice bends the arrow at your heart, and strains the bow, and it is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, and that of an angry God, without any promise or obligation at all, that keeps the arrow one moment from being made drunk with your blood. Thus all you that never passed under a great change of heart, by the mighty power of the Spirit of God upon your souls; all you that were never born again, and made new creatures, and raised from being dead in sin, to a state of new, and before altogether inexperienced light and life, are in the hands of an angry God. However you may have reformed your life in many things, and may have had religious affections, and may keep up a form of religion in your families and closets, and in the house of God, it is nothing but his mere pleasure that keeps you from being this moment swallowed up in everlasting destruction. However unconvinced you may now be of the truth of what you hear, by and by you will be fully convinced of it. Those that are gone from being in the like circumstances with you, see that it was so with them; for destruction came suddenly upon most of them; when they expected nothing of it, and while they were saying, Peace and safety: now they see, that those things on which they depended for peace and safety, were nothing but thin air and empty shadows.

The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours. You have offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince; and yet it is nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment. It is to be ascribed to nothing else, that you did not go to hell the last night; that you was suffered to awake again in this world, after you closed your eyes to sleep. And there is no other reason to be given, why you have not dropped into hell since you arose in the morning, but that God's hand has held you up. There is no other reason to be given why you have not gone to hell, since you have sat here in the house of God, provoking his pure eyes by your sinful wicked manner of attending his solemn worship. Yea, there is nothing else that is to be given as a reason why you do not this very moment drop down into hell.

O sinner! Consider the fearful danger you are in: it is a great furnace of wrath, a wide and bottomless pit, full of the fire of wrath, that you are held over in the hand of that God, whose wrath is provoked and incensed as much against you, as against many of the damned in hell. You hang by a slender thread, with the flames of divine wrath flashing about it, and ready every moment to singe it, and burn it asunder; and you have no interest in any Mediator, and nothing to lay hold of to save yourself, nothing to keep off the flames of wrath, nothing of your own, nothing that you ever have done, nothing that you can do, to induce God to spare you one moment. And consider here more particularly,

1. WHOSE wrath it is: it is the wrath of the infinite God. If it were only the wrath of man, though it were of the most potent prince, it would be comparatively little to be regarded. The wrath of kings is very much dreaded, especially of absolute monarchs, who have the possessions and lives of their subjects wholly in their power, to be disposed of at their mere will. Proverbs 20:2. "The fear of a king is as the roaring of a lion: Whoso provoketh him to anger, sinneth against his own soul." The subject that very much enrages an arbitrary prince, is liable to suffer the most extreme torments that human art can invent, or human power can inflict. But the greatest earthly potentates in their greatest majesty and strength, and when clothed in their greatest terrors, are but feeble, despicable worms of the dust, in comparison of the great and almighty Creator and King of heaven and earth.

It is but little that they can do, when most enraged, and when they have exerted the utmost of their fury. All the kings of the earth, before God, are as grasshoppers; they are nothing, and less than nothing: both their love and their hatred is to be despised. The wrath of the great King of kings, is as much more terrible than theirs, as his majesty is greater. Luke 12:4, 5. "And I say unto you, my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that, have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom you shall fear: fear him, which after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell: yea, I say unto you, Fear him."

2. It is the FIERCENESS of his wrath that you are exposed to. We often read of the fury of God; as in Isaiah 59:18. "According to their deeds, accordingly he will repay fury to his adversaries." So Isaiah 66:15. "For behold, the Lord will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire." And in many other places. So, Revelation 19:15, we read of "the wine press of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God." The words are exceeding terrible. If it had only been said, "the wrath of God," the words would have implied that which is infinitely dreadful: but it is "the fierceness and wrath of God." The fury of God! the fierceness of Jehovah! Oh, how dreadful that must be! Who can utter or conceive what such expressions carry in them! But it is also "the fierceness and wrath of ALMIGHTY God." As though there would be a very great manifestation of his almighty power in what the fierceness of his wrath should inflict, as though omnipotence should be as it were enraged, and exerted, as men are wont to exert their strength in the fierceness of their wrath. Oh! then, what will be the consequence! What will become of the poor worms that shall suffer it! Whose hands can be strong? And whose heart can endure? To what a dreadful, inexpressible, inconceivable depth of misery must the poor creature be sunk who shall be the subject of this! Consider this, you that are here present, that yet remain in an unregenerate state. That God will execute the fierceness of his anger, implies, that he will inflict wrath without any pity. When God beholds the ineffable extremity of your case, and sees your torment to be so fastly disproportioned to your strength, and sees how your poor soul is crushed, and sinks down, as it were, into an infinite gloom; he will have no compassion upon you, he will not forbear the executions of his wrath, or in the least lighten his hand; there shall be no moderation or mercy, nor will God then at all stay his rough wind; he will have no regard to your welfare, nor be at all careful lest you should suffer too much in any other sense, than only that you shall NOT SUFFER BEYOND WHAT STRICT JUSTICE REQUIRES. Nothing shall be withheld, because it is so hard for you to bear. Ezekiel 8:18.

"Therefore will I also deal in fury: mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity; and though they cry in mine ears with a loud voice, yet I will not hear them." Now God stands ready to pity you; this is a day of mercy; you may cry now with some encouragement of obtaining mercy. But when once the day of mercy is past, your most lamentable and dolorous cries and shrieks will be in vain; you will be wholly lost and thrown away of God, as to any regard to your welfare. God will have no other use to put you to, but to suffer misery; you shall be continued in being to no other end; for you will be a vessel of wrath fitted to destruction; and there will be no other use of this vessel, but to be filled full of wrath. God will be so far from pitying you when you cry to him, that it is said he will only "laugh and mock," Proverbs 1:25, 26, etc.

How awful are those words, Isaiah 63:3, which are the words of the great God. "I will tread them in mine anger, and will trample them in my fury, and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment." It is perhaps impossible to conceive of words that carry in them greater manifestations of these three things, viz. contempt, and hatred, and fierceness of indignation. If you cry to God to pity you, he will be so far from pitying you in your doleful case, or showing you the least regard or favor, that instead of that, he will only tread you under foot. And though he will know that you cannot bear the weight of omnipotence treading upon you, yet he will not regard that, but he will crush you under his feet without mercy; he will crush out your blood, and make it fly, and it shall be sprinkled on his garments, so as to stain all his raiment. He will not only hate you, but he will have you in the utmost contempt: no place shall be thought fit for you, but under his feet to be trodden down as the mire of the streets.

3. The MISERY you are exposed to is that which God will inflict to that end, that he might show what that wrath of Jehovah is. God hath had it on his heart to show to angels and men, both how excellent his love is, and also how terrible his wrath is. Sometimes earthly kings have a mind to show how terrible their wrath is, by the extreme punishments they would execute on those that would provoke them. Nebuchadnezzar, that mighty and haughty monarch of the Chaldean empire, was willing to show his wrath when enraged with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego; and accordingly gave orders that the burning fiery furnace should be heated seven times hotter than it was before; doubtless, it was raised to the utmost degree of fierceness that human art could raise it. But the great God is also willing to show his wrath, and magnify his awful majesty and mighty power in the extreme sufferings of his enemies. Romans 9:22. "What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction?" And seeing this is his design, and what he has determined, even to show how terrible the unrestrained wrath, the fury and fierceness of Jehovah is, he will do it to effect. There will be something accomplished and brought to pass that will be dreadful with a witness. When the great and angry God hath risen up and executed his awful vengeance on the poor sinner, and the wretch is actually suffering the infinite weight and power of his indignation, then will God call upon the whole universe to behold that awful majesty and mighty power that is to be seen in it. Isaiah 33:12-14. "And the people shall be as the burnings of lime, as thorns cut up shall they be burnt in the fire. Hear ye that are far off, what I have done; and ye that are near, acknowledge my might. The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites," etc. Thus it will be with you that are in an unconverted state, if you continue in it; the infinite might, and majesty, and terribleness of the omnipotent God shall be magnified upon you, in the ineffable strength of your torments. You shall be tormented in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb; and when you shall be in this state of suffering, the glorious inhabitants of heaven shall go forth and look on the awful spectacle, that they may see what the wrath and fierceness of the Almighty is; and when they have seen it, they will fall down and adore that great power and majesty. Isaiah 66:23, 24. "And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord. And they shall go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched, and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh."

4. It is EVERLASTING wrath. It would be dreadful to suffer this fierceness and wrath of Almighty God one moment; but you must suffer it to all eternity. There will be no end to this exquisite horrible misery. When you look forward, you shall see a long for ever, a boundless duration before you, which will swallow up your thoughts, and amaze your soul; and you will absolutely despair of ever having any deliverance, any end, any mitigation, any rest at all. You will know certainly that you must wear out long ages, millions of millions of ages, in wrestling and conflicting with this almighty merciless vengeance; and then when you have so done, when so many ages have actually been spent by you in this manner, you will know that all is but a point to what remains. So that your punishment will indeed be infinite. Oh, who can express what the state of a soul in such circumstances is! All that we can possibly say about it, gives but a very feeble, faint representation of it; it is inexpressible and inconceivable: For "who knows the power of God's anger?" How dreadful is the state of those that are daily and hourly in the danger of this great wrath and infinite misery! But this is the dismal case of every soul in this congregation that has not been born again, however moral and strict, sober and religious, they may otherwise be. Oh that you would consider it, whether you be young or old! There is reason to think, that there are many in this congregation now hearing this discourse, that will actually be the subjects of this very misery to all eternity. We know not who they are, or in what seats they sit, or what thoughts they now have. It may be they are now at ease, and hear all these things without much disturbance, and are now flattering themselves that they are not the persons, promising themselves that they shall escape. If we knew that there was one person, and but one, in the whole congregation, that was to be the subject of this misery, what an awful thing would it be to think of! If we knew who it was, what an awful sight would it be to see such a person! How might all the rest of the congregation lift up a lamentable and bitter cry over him! But, alas! instead of one, how many is it likely will remember this discourse in hell? And it would be a wonder, if some that are now present should not be in hell in a very short time, even before this year is out. And it would be no wonder if some persons, that now sit here, in some seats of this meeting-house, in health, quiet and secure, should be there before tomorrow morning. Those of you that finally continue in a natural condition, that shall keep out of hell longest will be there in a little time! your damnation does not slumber; it will come swiftly, and, in all probability, very suddenly upon many of you. You have reason to wonder that you are not already in hell. It is doubtless the case of some whom you have seen and known, that never deserved hell more than you, and that heretofore appeared as likely to have been now alive as you.

Their case is past all hope; they are crying in extreme misery and perfect despair; but here you are in the land of the living and in the house of God, and have an opportunity to obtain salvation. What would not those poor damned hopeless souls give for one day's opportunity such as you now enjoy!

And now you have an extraordinary opportunity, a day wherein Christ has thrown the door of mercy wide open, and stands in calling and crying with a loud voice to poor sinners; a day wherein many are flocking to him, and pressing into the kingdom of God. Many are daily coming from the east, west, north and south; many that were very lately in the same miserable condition that you are in, are now in a happy state, with their hearts filled with love to him who has loved them, and washed them from their sins in his own blood, and rejoicing in hope of the glory of God. How awful is it to be left behind at such a day! To see so many others feasting, while you are pining and perishing! To see so many rejoicing and singing for joy of heart, while you have cause to mourn for sorrow of heart, and howl for vexation of spirit! How can you rest one moment in such a condition? Are not your souls as precious as the souls of the people at Suffield, where they are flocking from day to day to Christ?

Are there not many here who have lived long in the world, and are not to this day born again? and so are aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and have done nothing ever since they have lived, but treasure up wrath against the day of wrath? Oh, sirs, your case, in an especial manner, is extremely dangerous. Your guilt and hardness of heart is extremely great. Do you not see how generally persons of your years are passed over and left, in the present remarkable and wonderful dispensation of God's mercy? You had need to consider yourselves, and awake thoroughly out of sleep. You cannot bear the fierceness and wrath of the infinite God. And you, young men, and young women, will you neglect this precious season which you now enjoy, when so many others of your age are renouncing all youthful vanities, and flocking to Christ? You especially have now an extraordinary opportunity; but if you neglect it, it will soon be with you as with those persons who spent all the precious days of youth in sin, and are now come to such a dreadful pass in blindness and hardness. And you, children, who are unconverted, do not you know that you are going down to hell, to bear the dreadful wrath of that God, who is now angry with you every day and every night? Will you be content to be the children of the devil, when so many other children in the land are converted, and are become the holy and happy children of the King of kings?

And let every one that is yet out of Christ, and hanging over the pit of hell, whether they be old men and women, or middle aged, or young people, or little children, now hearken to the loud calls of God's word and providence. This acceptable year of the Lord, a day of such great favor to some, will doubtless be a day of as remarkable vengeance to others. Men's hearts harden, and their guilt increases apace at such a day as this, if they neglect their souls; and never was there so great danger of such persons being given up to hardness of heart and blindness of mind. God seems now to be hastily gathering in his elect in all parts of the land; and probably the greater part of adult persons that ever shall be saved, will be brought in now in a little time, and that it will be as it was on the great out-pouring of the Spirit upon the Jews in the apostles' days; the election will obtain, and the rest will be blinded. If this should be the case with you, you will eternally curse this day, and will curse the day that ever you was born, to see such a season of the pouring out of God's Spirit, and will wish that you had died and gone to hell before you had seen it. Now undoubtedly it is, as it was in the days of John the Baptist, the ax is in an extraordinary manner laid at the root of the trees, that every tree which brings not forth good fruit, may be hewn down and cast into the fire.

Therefore, let every one that is out of Christ, now awake and fly from the wrath to come. The wrath of Almighty God is now undoubtedly hanging over a great part of this congregation. Let every one fly out of Sodom: "Haste and escape for your lives, look not behind you, escape to the mountain, lest you be consumed."

The Long Road Out of Commerce

Jodie Lynn

Editor's Note: The following is from a sister in the Lord and should give all of us hope that we can do the same.

My husband and I got married the twenty eighth day of the sixth month in the year of Our Lord nineteen hundred eighty. By the eleventh month of the same year we had purchased (land sales mortgage)a twenty eight acre farm in the Willamette Valley in Marion county, Oregon.

The farm was financed by the State VA Program and Our parents. At the same time we borrowed money(parents again) to purchase sheep to raise on the farm.

Then the fights began. Either I was spending to much or He was, or He wasn't working enough or I wasn't. He got mad when I borrowed from My father, I got mad when his Mother offered unwanted advise.

Time went on and We were learning not to purchase on time, that is, the small things.

The winter of eighty one I attended classes on Tax Preparation, and then passed the test. The Spring of eighty two I started work at H & R Block as a Licensed Tax Preparer.

During the same era We started a greenhouse business on the farm that was quite successful.

My father got ill and we had to take care of him and his farm.

More bills and more debt.

I continued to prepare Taxes for the next five tax seasons for various firms. In the fall of eighty five I passed the exam to be a "Licensed Tax Consultant" and then opened my own office "Woodburn Tax Service & Bookkeeping". On Hwy 99E there was an office I rented, and then hired a Gal to help me. The business was very successful. Because of the growth, I needed more space, so I made an offer to the adjacent land owner on the purchase (Land Sales Contract e.i.Mortgage) of his building, rental house and lot. I plopped the money down and it was a done deal.

Now the debt was larger and the fights were bigger. Let's not forget to mention by now we have a son and two daughters.

The tax and bookkeeping business continued to grow so I hired a couple more Gals to help. At one time I had three full time employees besides myself. I had payroll taxes and huge overhead with computers and office equipment. I felt that my liability was great and I was sticking my neck out and wa la! I incorporated my business. Now I was a corporate officer.

The greenhouse business was going good and we had started into Christmas trees so we incorporated the farm business too. Now my Husband was a corporate Office just like Me!

Now back in the Spring of eighty seven we accepted the Lord into Our lives. He had been working on us in different ways and We are glad We heard the knock at the door. We knew things were not correct, but how do you get from Point A to Point B when the canyon looks so deep?

Trying to get on the correct path and follow it, is hard, especially when you are learning so much at one time; Christianity, Parenting, Business, and Farming not to forget to mention matrimony. Well the Lord had(has) a plan and I guess it is up to us to seek it out.

One day in the third month of ninety three my Husband was reading the Farm newspaper and saw a ranch for sale in Eastern Oregon, he jokingly said "let's go look at it" I said OK and that weekend we did. It was fifty four ranches later before we bought one.

In the mean time I sold my tax business, sold the office building, and sold the farms I inherited after my fathers death. At the time We started liquidating We had four rental house, four different pieces of property and I rented out three office suites and a warehouse, I had the tax business, We had the nursery and Christmas trees and oh yes three children (we weren't able to liquidate them).

During the same time on one evening in the spring of ninety three a very close friend of Ours Ronald Lowell, mentioned in conversation that there was two kinds of citizens and did I know which I was? (We know now we are neither, but it was the start for us down the correct path). I confessed I hadn't a clue what he was talking about. Curious about all his findings I needed to know more.

Now tax research was one of my all time favorite things to do, find the loop hole find the truth, find the gray area...! So I went to Salem to the Marion county Law Library, literally sitting on the floor in the aisle way with books piled around me, reading for five hours straight, about "Citizen" and "citizen" and I came out of there with the understanding that It was something that I didn't want to be.

Now the idea to move to Eastern Oregon made more sense. Get away from the commercialism get back to the basics and more importantly back to God.

In the Winter of ninety five we purchased Ranch number fifty four, it was paid for with cash and Gold no mortgage, no borrowing and no fights.

We lived in an Elk hunting tent (we still had our house in the valley) for six weeks while building a pole barn for shelter. It got down to 12 degrees in the tent. When the pole barn was completed we moved in and the next night it got down to -5 degrees. We moved everything from Our old place and it finally sold in the summer of ninety six.

This ranch does not have an address or a mailbox. We receive everything General Delivery. We owe no one any money, We pay as We go and if We don't have the money We simply don't buy it. We do not have any charge cards, charge accounts, or bank accounts of any sort.

The only monthly bill we have is the telephone bill, but to keep from having easements across the property we would not allow the telephone company to put in the phoneline. I do all my calling from along side the county road. (Don't call me I'll call you.) It really keeps the phone bill down. This has not been an overnight change, it has been a long learning process and We are still learning and we have made mistakes and we will make more. Our motive is correct and Our hearts are in the correct spot too. We now think about everything We do and how it will affect us. My husband barters with the neighbors for some of Our needs and I take homemade bread and Eggs to the neighbor lady, who in turn provides Us with fresh milk. To keep from being involved as much as possible with commerce, We are working toward being completely God sufficient, learning how to grow all Our food needs and learning how to use what is provided for us.

Discerning between wants and needs, comforts and conveniences. Learning to let him lead and provide. Oh yes, the Children I almost forgot they are doing very well, they love Our new home, they have six hundred forty acres on which to ride their horses, they are home taught and they enjoy that too. We have lots of wildlife around Us and everyday We all see or learn something new.

Continuing to seek His path, - Jodie Lynn

Editor's note: We at The Christian Jural Society News welcome letters for reprint from fellow-Christians on similar stories of successful disengagement from the Beast.

n. a philanthropist; an anti-Trinitarian who rejects the doctrine of Christ's divinity; one who believes that the duty of man consists of acting rightly to others; a perfectionist: adj. philanthropic.Collier's New Dictionary of the English Language, 1928 edition.

Humanitarian

(hû-man-i-tâ'r î-an)

sb. I. Theol. One who affirms the mere humanity of Christ. 2. One who professes the 'Religion of Humanity', holding that man's duty is chiefly or wholly comprised in the advancement of the welfare of the human race 1831. 3. A philanthropist; esp. one who goes to excess in his humane principals 1844. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principals, 1933 edition.

"HUMANITARIAN is very stangely perverted by a certain class of speakers and writers. It is a theological word; and its original meaning is, One who denies the godhead of Jesus Christ, and insists upon his human nature. But it is used by the people in question, whose example has infected others, as if it meant humane, and something more. Now, as the meaning of humane is recognizing in a common humanity a bond of kindness, good will, and good offices, it is difficult to discover what more humanitarian, used in the sense of widely-benevolent and philanthropic, is mere cant, the result of an effort by certain people to elevate and to approximate to themselves a common feeling by giving it a grand and peculiar name." Words and Their Uses, Past and Present, (1889), by Richard Grant White.

Humanitarianism. n. the doctrine that humankind may become perfect without divine aid.Random House Webster's College Dictionary, (1990).

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

Old Humphrey's short way with Infidels

In moving among mankind, I have now and then fallen in with infidels, who had not only declared their disbelief of the Bible, but endeavored also to destroy the faith of others in that blessed book. The way in which they have always begun their attack is, to higgle and wriggle about some disputed point of little importance, with as much confidence, as if they were on the point of overturning the whole truth of scripture by their silly prattle. Just as soon would a poor blind mole tear up from the ground an oak of a hundred years growth, by burrowing under one of the least of its roots.

If ever you fall in with one of these unhappy beings, don't be drawn in cavil with them about trifles, but boldly declare your opinion leaving them to wrangle, if they like, by themselves.

Tell them that if there be any thing good, and pure, and holy, and heavenly in the world, the Bible exhorts us to practice it; and if there be any thing that is evil, and base, and vile, in the world, the Bible commands us to avoid it. That will be a poser.

Tell them that the Bible contains more knowledge and wisdom than all the books that were ever printed, put together; and that those who believe its promises and obey its comandments, have peace and hope and joy, in the cares of life, and the trying hours of death. That will be a poser too.

Tell them that the Bible has been believed in by the wisest and best men from generation to generation, as the word of the living God, and that it makes known to a sinner the only way of salvation through the merits and death of a crucified Redeemer. That will be another poser.

And then ask them, before they pull the book to pieces any more, to produce one that has done a thousandth part as much good in making men happy on earth, and in guiding them in the way of heaven; and that will be the greatest poser of them all.

Depend upon it, this course will be better than wrangling and jangling about sticks and straws, losing your temper, and feeling yourself outwitted into the bargain, by the borrowed conceits of silly coxcombs, whose hearts and whose heads are equally empty.

The Sabbath

'I have ever found," says the great lord chief justice Hale, "that a due observation of the duty of Sunday, has ever had joined to it a blessing upon the rest of my time; and the week that has so begun, has been blessed and prosperous to me; and, on the other side, and when I have been negligent of the duties of this day, the rest of the week has been unsuccessful and unhappy to my own secular employments. So that I could easily make an estimate of my success the week following, by the manner of my passing this day. And I do not write this lightly, but by long and sound experience."

God may be Trusted

A military officer being at sea in a dreadful storm, his lady, who was sitting near him, and filled with alarm for the safety of the vessel, was so surprised at his composure and serenity, that she cried out, "My dear, are you not afraid? How is it possible that you can be so calm in such a storm?" He arose from a chair lashed to the deck, and supporting himself by a pillar of a bed-place, he drew his sword, and pointing it to the breast of his wife, he exclaimed, "Are you not afraid?" She instantly replied, "No, certainly not." "Why?" said the officer. "Because," rejoined the lady, "I know the sword is in the hands of my husband, and he loves me too well to hurt me." "Then," said he, "remember I know in whom I have Believed, and that He holds the winds in His fist, and the waters in the hollow of His hand."

Issue the Twelfth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Pursuing Your Christian Calling vs. Engaging in Commercial Activity...

Land vs. Real Property, Part Two...

Let This Mind Be In You, Part One...

Thomas Jefferson: Friend or Foe, Part Four...

R.J. Rushdoony on Political Apostasy and on Nationalism...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Pursuing Your Christian Calling

vs.

Engaging in Commercial Activity

The purpose of this article is to display the subtle differences between 'engaging in commercial activity' and 'pursuing your Christian calling.' I hope and pray that the following will provide the basics for a better grasp on this vital subject matter. To supplement this article, please read 'Commerce vs. Unalienable Rights,' (Parts One and Two) from Issues the Fifth and Sixth. As always, the full answers will be found in Scripture and The Word of God.

"Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. Brethren, let every man wherein he is called, therein abide with God."
I Cor. 7:23-24
"Nothing is more complex than commerce"; 6 Webster's Wks. 8.

'Modern commerce' being a non-christian form of activity, one must go all the way 'round the barn in order to understand why it is so complex. Non-christian thought constantly modifies its position and with each modification it must redefine the words and terms it uses, which introduces confusion in the minds of everyone except those who create it, i.e., the secular lawyers.

Each time a modification takes place, the new 'creation' becomes more confused than previously. Thus, abstraction from reality is an on-going process in non-christian thought.

The most important thing to understand, is that the term 'commercial activity' is a recently created term governed by the Law Merchant (lex mercatoria). Using that law's customs and usages (commercial instruments, a business license, profit and loss records, balance sheets, advertising, receipts, business cards, insurance policies, social security number, driver's license, commercial speech, extended credit, limited liability, free mail service, ownership, etc.) is what determines whether you are in 'their' activity or not. The use of such modes and instruments makes you subject and regulatable under the Uniform Commercial Code (a privately copy- righted 'law' by The American Law Institute).

A general definition of 'commercial activity' may be stated as:

'any form of express or implied economic activity contrary to God's Law.'

In this definition, is included all forms of debt and suretyship to man, and benefits, privileges, and opportunities, contrary to God's Law, acquired from secular 'civil' government.

As simple as the above definition is, it is still difficult to understand, because many modern Christians do not know God's Laws concerning economic activity. To these 'moderns', obedience to God's Law is not required because "you may sink into the nasty pit of 'legalism'."

For those of you who don't know, 'legalism' is the belief that one's works gain salvation. This was the view of Jews in the first century.

But, Christians know, or should know, that we are saved by the shed blood of Jesus Christ, so the 'legalism' charge cannot apply to Christians. The charge is leveled against Us, by those who do not want to obey God, and prefer to take the easy, broad way, by obeying the secular governments rather than God.

Category One

Buying, selling or trading

Buying, selling or trading is not necessarily 'commercial activity' or contrary to Scripture. How, for what purpose and with whom that buying, selling or trading is transacted, determines whether it is considered a 'commercial activity' and contrary to The Law of God. Creating a record, such as the giving or receiving of a receipt, profit and loss records, balance sheets, etc., constitutes commercial activity. Buying, selling or trading with someone other than your neighbor (fellow-Christian) or outside of your community (outside of Christendom), constitutes commercial activity and is not favored in Scripture. Calling yourself 'the owner' (which is a commercial term) constitutes commercial activity, for God is 'The Owner' of every thing (The earth is the LORDS and the fullness thereof). Charging or paying interest through extended credit for such transactions constitutes commercial activity through 'suretyship' and is contrary to Scripture ('Owe no man any thing, but to love one another'... Rom.13:8). Advertising to the 'general public' (the secular world, i.e., non-christians, atheists, and other infidels), to sell a product or your labor, constitutes commercial activity and is not favored by God.

"The power of Congress to regulate commerce confers no power to declare the status which any person shall sustain within a State." Lemmon v. People (1857), 26 Barb. (N.Y.) 270.

It simply has to do with venue and jurisdiction... (are you living the Law in accordance with the One True God of Scripture or the god Mercury, who is the god of commerce?).

"Mercury was not only the messenger of the gods, but was also appointed god of eloquence, commerce, rain, wind, and the special patron of travelers, shepherds, cheats, and thieves." Myths of Greece and Rome (1893), p. 134.

As Christ said,

"If ye love me, keep my commandments." John 14:15.

Therefore, 'love' is: living the Law of God.

As The Apostle Paul said,

"Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." Romans 13:10.

When operating within Christendom and with fellow-Christians ( your community and brethren) - receipts, records, advertising, profiteering for abundant gain, the free government benefit of home mail delivery, charging or paying interest etc., is not necessary and therefore should not be used if you wish to remain non- commercial. All Christians should be operating by word of mouth within their community and supporting one another (...for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. Rom. 13:8).

It should be every Good and Lawful Christian's goal, to remove him or herself from transacting any kind of business with the secular world; only accept mail matter at General Delivery; and stay within Christendom only. This will not be an easy thing to do, considering the current commercial world we find ourselves surrounded by. This will not be done 'overnight' and it is suggested that one does not try to do it overnight. It will take much sacrifice, but it will be Honored and Rewarded by God if there is repentance taking place in these areas.

"But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed." James 1:25.

Little steps can become giant ones in time. As an example of this, see Issue the Eleventh of The News, 'The Long Road Out of Commerce.'

"According to the multitude of years after the jubilee thou shalt buy of thy neighbor, and according unto the number of years of the fruits he shall sell unto thee.
According to the multitude of years thou shalt increase the price thereof, and according to the fewness of years thou shalt diminish the price of it: for according to the number of the years of the fruits doth he sell unto thee.
Ye shall not therefore oppress (take advantage) one another; but thou shalt fear thy God: for I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 25:15-17.

Category Two

Employment and Your Christian Calling

Under commercial law, all employee-employ- er relationships are considered 'master-servant' relationships. When one works for or is employed by an individual or company that gets its privilege to operate from the State through business licenses, incorporation, etc., that person becomes, as the company has become, subject to regulation, taxation, etc., through the master-servant doctrine (rendering unto Caesar). Social Security Numbers, Driver's Licenses, Insurance Policies and all of the other indicators of commercial activity are required and made a matter of record for commercial tracking purposes.

This 'master-servant' relationship only occurs when one is 'hired' on a 'day-to-day' basis. In contrast, when one is payed daily, it is considered 'casual labor,' and is not subject to taxation and regulation. This just 'happens' to be Biblical (see James 4:13-17, Mat. 6:34).

In reality, when you work for someone that pays you on a weekly or monthly basis or after the sun sets, you are extending credit to that employer. For you expend your labor daily, but extend the payment for that labor to a future date. This is clearly commercial activity (for the standard, see Mat. 6:11 and Luke 11:3).

Again, as with buying, selling and trading, it should be every Good and Lawful Christian's goal to work for only those of like mind and heart that will 'give you this day, your daily bread (the 'bread' produced from your labor, in contrast to God's Spiritual Bread) or 'an honest day's pay for an honest day's work,' daily.

You should work for or with only another Good and Lawful Christian that doesn't look to the State for his or her right to pursue their Christian Calling, whatever that form of 'business,' gift or talent might be. It's a matter of finding and remaining with those of like mind that are educated in these matters and who fear The LORD and not the State.

In this way, you will remain out of commercial activity and you will be trading your labor for your sustainance according to Scripture.

Again,

"Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. Brethren, let every man wherein he is called, therein abide with God." I Cor. 7:23-24

Pursuing Your Christian Calling is, therefore:

Working and operating within Christendom and with fellow-Christians for The Glory of God, wherein all obey The Law of God.

The talents and gifts that God has given you can only be used to that end. This is love.

Category Three

Traveling vs.

Your Christian Liberty on the Common Ways

Traveling is a purely commercial term (see Issue the Ninth, "Myths of the Patriot Movement"). Therefore, for one to be involved in 'moving about on the military roads,' the term used, should be, 'exercising your Christian Liberty on the Common Ways.' As Scripture says;

"I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." Phillippians 4:13.

Only in this way, will you import 'your' Law into a potential situation with the 'military police.'

"For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another." Galatians 5:13.

In other words, that activity can not be of a commercial nature, but limited to only two purposes. For going to church and market. To church for spiritual sustainance, which includes fellowship with fellow-Christians anywhere and other activity for the edification of the church (Christendom), and to market (with Christians only) for physical sustainance.

Your King James Family Bible and your Baptismal Certificate should be carried with you at all times when you venture out on the 'military roads.' If you are stopped and asked for your 'drivers license,' simply hand them your Bible and say that you have something better than that, and repeat Phillipians 4:13. Use your Baptismal Certicate if they want to know who you are, your age, etc. Point out to them that you are not out there to hurt anyone or profit from anyone, and that you have a Higher Law you have to answer to.

"Each principal is entitled to the agent's undivided loyalty, for the law recognizes 'that no man can serve two masters.' Mechem on Agency, 3d. ed., sec. 298. Rotwein, Law of Agency, page 40.
"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24. See also Luke 16:13.

If you choose to 'travel' for 'financial profit' through sales calls, a delivery service, transporting passengers or goods for a price, etc., then you will be under the jurisdiction of and regulated by the god of commercial roads, Mercury.

"We may very safely assert these two things in general, without undermining government: One is, that no civil rulers are to be obeyed when they enjoin things that are inconsistent with the commands of God. All such disobedience is lawful and glorious; particularly if persons refuse to comply with any legal establishment of religion.Another thing that may be asserted with equal truth and safety is, that no government is to be submitted to at the expense of that which is the sole end of all government--the common good and safety of society." Rev. Jonathan Mayhew in a sermon titled "Unlimited Submission," cited in Clinton Rossiter's, 'Seedtime of the Republic,' p. 241. [These parts of Mayhew's discourse concern Romans 13:1.]

With the current situation of martial rule in America, expect be to treated as follows when engaged in commercial activity:

"In the war with Mexico, declared by Congress to exist by the act of Mexico, (see 9 Statutes-at-Large, page 9,) the Supreme Court have maintained, in two cases, that the President, without any act of Congress, as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, could exert the belligerent right of levying contributions on the enemy to annoy and weaken him. In the case of Fleming et al. v. Page, 9 Howard 615, the present Chief Justice says, 'As Commander-in-Chief he is authorized to direct the movements of the naval and military forces, placed by law, at his command, and to employ them in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy;' again and page 616, 'The person who acted in the character of collector [judge] in this instance, acted as such under the authority of the military commander, and in obedience to his orders, and the duties he exacted, and the regulations he adopted were not those prescribed by law, but by the President in his character as Commander-in-Chief. The Custom House [municipal court] was established in an enemy's country as one of the weapons of war. It was established not for the purpose of giving the people of Tamaulipas the benefit of commerce with the United States or with other countries, but a measure of hostility, and as a part of the military operations in Mexico, it was a mode of exacting of contributions from the enemy to support our army, and intended also to cripple the resources of Mexico, and make it feel the evils and the burdens of the war. The duties required to be paid were regulated with this view, and were nothing more than contributions levied upon the enemy which the usages of war justify when an army is operating in the enemy's country.' United States et al. v. "Tropic Wind" (1861), 2 D.C. 374.

In contrast, God's Promise to Christians:

"And I will make them and the places round about my hill a blessing; and I will cause the shower to come down in his season; there shall be showers of blessing.
And the tree of the field shall yield her fruit, and the earth shall yield her increase, and they shall be safe in their land, and shall know that I am the LORD, when I have broken the bands of their yoke, and delivered them out of the hand of those that served themselves of them.
And they shall no more be a prey to the heathen, neither shall the beast of the land devour them; but they shall dwell safely, and none shall make them afraid.
And I shall raise up for them a plant of renown, and they shall no more be consumed with hunger in the land, neither bear the shame of the heathen any more." Ezekiel 34:26-29

Being Christians, we are sojourners with God. If you are walking with Mercurius, God does not sojourn with you.

Land vs. Real Property

(continued from Issue the Eleventh)

"The principle of emphyteusis furnishes a connecting link between the Roman imperial system of land tenure and the medieval system. It arose out of the custom whereby land taken in war [Lincoln, Lieber, and Co. v.. All Christian states] was rented by the State on long leases. The rent paid in such cases was called vectigal, and the land was called ager vectigalis. It was a form of leasehold property especially advantageous to corporations of all kinds, as they were relieved from all duties and cares as landlords and were assured of a fixed income.

When this form was employed by private persons and corporations, it was known as emphyteusis, the land as [*312] fundus emphyteuticarius, and the person to whom the land was given as emphyteuta. An emphyteusis was a grant of land or houses forever, or for a long period, on the condition that an annual sum (canon or pensio) [property tax] should be paid to the owner--dominus--or his successors, and that if such sum was not duly paid, the grant should be forfeited. According to the law of the Emperor Zeno (475-491), emphyteusis was neither a sale nor a lease, but a special form of contract [equity].

The rights of emphyteuta were, first of all, the right of use and enjoyment. But he was better off than a mere usufructuary. He was rather the bona fide possessor of the property. The only restriction to his use of the land was that he must not cause depreciation in value of the property. Furthermore, he could, subject to certain restrictions, alienate property. It passed to his heirs [subject to inheritance taxes on the property of the deceased]; it could be mortgaged or hypothecated; and it could be burdened with servitudes.

But these rights depended upon the fulfillment of certain duties. If the canon [property tax] was not paid for three years (in the case of Church lands, for two years), or if the land tax remained unpaid for the same period, the grant was forfeited. Here his position was different from that of the usufructuary, for the latter paid no rent. The original rent of the land granted could not be increased by the owner, but on the other hand it was not diminished by any partial loss of the property. The emphyteuta had to pay all the burdens attached to the land, and deliver all tax receipts to the owner.

The method of alienating the property was as follows: 'The emphyteuta ought to transmit to the dominus formal notice of the sum that a purchaser is willing to give for it. The owner has two months to decide whether he will take the emphyteusis at that sum; and if he wishes it, the transfer must be made to him. If he does not buy at the price named within two months, the [*313] emphyteuta can sell to any fit and proper person without the consent of the dominus. If such a person is found, the dominus must accept him as his emphyteuta, and admit him into possession either personally, by written authority, or by attestation, before notaries or a magistrate [County Recorder]. For this trouble, the dominus is entitled to charge a sum (laudenium) [closing costs] not exceeding two per cent on the purchase money. If the owner does not make acknowledgment within two months, then the emphyteuta can, without his consent, transfer his right and give him possession. [Hunter, Roman Law, p. 429.]" Guy Carleton Lee, Historical Jurisprudence (1922), pp. 311-313. [Ed. note: This excellent reference is available from Randy Lee. Call 818 347-7080 for information; or fax requests to 818 313-8814.]

Remember, we all were warned:

"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." Ecc 1:9. [Emphasis added.]

Note bona fide use meant you continued to pay your yearly use fees, now called "property taxes" (vectigal), thus showing your good faith:

"VECTIGAL, -ALIS, n. [vect-is]. (A thing pertaining to carrying goods, etc., into a country; hence) I. Prop.: A toll, tax, impost paid to the State: Cic. II. Meton.: Of private affairs: Revenue, rents, income, etc.: Cic.; Hor.
"VECTIGAL-IS, E, adj. [vectigal] I. Prop.: A. Of, or belonging to, imposts or taxes; tribute: pecunia, Cic.--B. Tributary, or paying tribute: civitas, Cic.--As Subst.: vectigalis, is m. (sc. homo) one paying tribute, a tributary: Caes.; Liv. II. Meton.: Of or belonging to, the revenue; that brings in revenue or income equi, Cic." White, A Complete Latin-English and English-Latin Dictionary (1872), p. 633.

Thus, you could use and enjoy the property against all others, except the State--eminent domain doctrine. But how could this be, "in the land of the free?" The answer is that an equitable, though not feudal, relationship has been set up between you and the State.

"Lex fingit ubi subsistit aequitas--Law creates a fiction where equity exists." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2143;
"In fictione juris semper subsistit aequitas--In a legal fiction equity always exists." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2138.

Where? I can tell you it is not the purported Fourteenth Amendment. You will have to go back a few years before the Fourteenth Amendment to find the answer. The thread or chain is there, unbroken. It hinges on the acts of the lawless firm of A. Lincoln, F. Lieber, and Associates, Inc. to ascend the throne of perfidy. Now to the coup de grace:

"84. Of Entry.
"The act, by which the owner of an estate in corporeal real property takes physical possession of the same, is known as entry. If his estate is created by actual livery of seisin [not by mortgage under the person acting as commander-in-chief], his reception of the seisin on the land, from the grantor [God], constitutes his entry. If his estate is otherwise created, or if it descends to him from a deceased ancestor, or if, once having had possession, he has been disseised, or if estates, whose possession takes precedence of his own, have been determined, his entry consists of going on the land and [*47] claiming it as his, according to the nature of his actual estate [by Inheritance from God through Jesus Christ]. Read 2 Bl. Comm., p. 312; 3 Bl. Comm., pp. 174-179; 1 Cruise Dig., Tit. I, 24-28; 2 Cruise Dig., Tit. xiii, Ch. ii, 41-55; 1 Wash. R. P., B. I, Ch. ii, 66; 2 Wash. R. P. B. I, Ch. xiv, 15, 16; 3 Wash. R. P., B. iii, Ch. ii, Sec. 7, 12." Robinson's Elementary Law (1882), pp. 46-47. [Insertions added.]
"As time goes on a great variety of writs of entry is devised. At first the writ recounts all the hands through which the land has passed since the original defect, although there were limits placed upon the number of changes (whether alienations or descents) which could be alleged; finally, by statute demandants were allowed to say that the tenant had no entry save after (post) a particular defective title; dealings in the land subsequent to that event and leading down to the entry of the tenant no longer need be specified in the writ [Statute of Marlborough, c. 29 (1267); Pollock and Maitland, ii. 71; Plucknett, Statutes and their Interpretation, 80.]." Plucknett, A Concise History of the Common Law (1956), pp. 361-362.

What does it all mean? It means this: Whatever act(s) of usurpation Lincoln committed during his term in office, affecting any land titles or property rights in land, which are carried forward through codes, rules, and regulations can only give defective, but "marketable [commercial, lex mercatoria]" title, under the cognizance of the State franchised governments, which are under the person acting as commander-in-chief. Generally speaking, if you used the means [remember title is the means or manner of acquisition] of a Federal Reserve System sponsored bank mortgage, which is under the cognizance of that same person, to "purchase" "your" "real estate," the title ab origine is defective and polluted--human beings, because they know not God, needed the handout of that person, who is a thief walking with Mercurius and entered by some other way, to get "property."

Now, notice another thing here. How did this person get the title in the first place? Did God vacate His Throne? Can any one Lawfully convey what he does not Lawfully possess? See how the god of the venue changes everything? He gave you a "commercial interest", i.e. "real estate," but never gave you the right to have and hold the land under God! Only a government ordained by God can do such. Thus, You never entered the land. What was it that Adam lost in Eden--Dominion, by Inheritance from God? They cannot give true perfect title to land, because land was never theirs to give. It is imperfect or defective but "commercially marketable title" which needs "title insurance" under the Roman doctrine of emphyteusis, ante. Now do you get the story???

And the present equity, by deceit, exists as long as you do nothing to remove or destroy the evidence of it:

"Where performance [payment of vectigal] depends on existence of a given thing [civil right, consideration, benefit] assumed as the basis of the agreement [to "own" property], performance is excused to extent that thing ceases to exist or turns out to be non-existent." Dairy Food Store, Inc. v. Alpert (1931), 116 C.A. 670, 3 P.2d 61; Coulter v. Sausalito Bay Water Co. (1932), 122 C.A. 480, 10 P.2d 780.

[Abatement any one?] For it is also written,

"Fictio legis neminem laedit--A fiction of law injures no one." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2134.
"Longa patientia trahitur ad consensum--Long sufferance is construed as consent." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2144.
"Quod quis ex culpa sua damnum sentit, non intelligitur damnum sentire--He who suffers a damage by his own fault is not held to suffer damage." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2159.

In other words, as long as you do nothing about the presumption imposing equity and the fiction of law, you are consenting to whatever burdens it places upon you, and cannot claim any damage, including, but not limited to deceit or fraud.

"Negligentia semper habet infortuniam comitem--Negligence always has misfortune for a companion." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2146.

See how honest Abe really was? I will leave you to find the rest of the evidence, because the Course and Speed have been determined by God Himself. May He richly Bless You in this righteous Endeavor to reclaiming Your Inheritance. I leave you with some thoughts from a relatively unknown Good and Lawful Christian:

"If a Man invades my Property, he becomes an Aggressor, and puts himself into a State of War with me: I have a Right to oppose this Invader; If I have not Strength to repel him, I must submit, but he acquires no Right to my Estate which he has usurped. Whenever I recover Strength I may renew my Claim, and attempt to regain my Possession; if I am never strong enough, my Son, or his Son, when able, may recover the natural Right of his Ancestor which has been unjustly taken from him." Richard Bland, in the Inquiry, 1775. See United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196.

But how will today's de facto government, with its de facto courts, decide the political question? The de facto courts have no standing in Law to make such adjudications, because:

One, courts do not decide political questions; and,
Two, "There is no principle of law under which a de facto court can be sustained. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 6 S.Ct.Rep. 1121." Gorman v. People (1892), 17 Colo. 596, 31 P. 335.

In deciding a political question, it is necessary to understand the nature of all political questions: if it involves two or more diametrically opposed systems of law competing for the allegiance or obedience either of land or people, it is political:

"War is simply the exercise of force of bodies politic against each other for the purpose of coercion." Lewis v. Ludwick (1869), 46 Tenn.(Coldw.) 368, 98 Am.Dec. 454.

This goes back to the question of venue which Christ had in the exchanges noted above.

"[A government is] sovereign within its own territories. There necessarily its jurisdiction is exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. This is the result of its independence. It may be conceded that its actions should accord with natural justice and equity. If they do not, however, our courts are not competent to review them. They may not bring a foreign sovereign before our bar, not because of comity, but because he has not submitted himself to our laws. Without his consent he is not subject to them. Concededly, that is so as to a foreign government that has received recognition. The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116, 3 L.Ed. 287; Porto Rico v. Rosaly y Castillo, 227 U.S. 270, 33 S.Ct. 352, 57 L.Ed. 507; Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297, 38 S.Ct. 309, 62 L.Ed. 726; Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U.S. 250, 18 S.Ct. 83, 42 L.Ed. 456; American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347, 29 S.Ct. 511, 53 L.Ed. 826, 16 Ann.Cas. 1026; Ricaud v. American Metal Co., 246 U.S. 304, 38 S.Ct. 312, 62 L.Ed. 733; Hassard v. United States of Mexico, 29 Misc.Rep. 511, 61 N.Y.Supp. 939, aff'd 173 N.Y. 645, 66 N.E. 1110; Mason v. Intercolonial Railway of Canada, 197 Mass. 349, 83 N.E. 876, 16 L.R.A.(N.S.) 276, 125 Am.St.Rep. 371, 14 Ann.Cas. 574; Wadsworth v. Queen of Spain, 17 Q.B. 171; Vavasseur v. Krupp, L.R. 9 Ch.Div. 351; Strousberg v. Republic of Costa Rica, 44 L.T. 199.
"But whether recognized or not, the evil of such an attempt would be the same. 'To cite a foreign potentate into a municipal court for any complaint against him in his public capacity is contrary to the law of nations, and an insult which he is entitled to resent.' De Haber v. Queen of Portugal, 17 Q.B. 171. In either case, to do so would `vex the peace of nations.'The question is a political one, not confided to the courts, but to another department of government. Whenever an act done by a sovereign in his sovereign character is questioned, it becomes a matter of negotiations, or reprisals, or of war." Wulfsohn v. Russian Soviet Socialist Federated Republic (1923), 234 N.Y. 372, 138 N.E. 24. [Emphasis added.] [This is the authority for using "reasonable means" to abate an action, i.e. writs of right and entry.]

How then can they possibly summon your Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, under Whom you claim?

Part III

Notice the basis of the land issue--sojourning. What does that mean?

"SOJOURN. Reside, stay. XIII (S. Eng. (Leg.) ME. Sorjourni soiourni -OF. sorjorner, sojorner (mod. Sejourner)=Pr. Sorjornar, It. soggiornare:-Rom. Sub diurnare 'spend the day', f. L. sub-+late L. diurnare day (cf. JOURNAL). So sojourn sb. XIII. -AN. su(r)jurn, OF. sojor, etc. (Mod. Sejour), f. the vb." Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966), p. 843.

It obviously means to conduct your affairs as though you could be leaving this earth at any time:

"SOJOURN, v.i.; sojourned, pt., pp.; sojourning, ppr. [Ofr. sojorner, sojourner; It. Soggiornare, from LL. (Hyp.) subdiurnare; sub, under, and diurnus, pertaining to a day, from dies, a day.] to dwell for a time; to dwell or live in a place as a temporary resident, or as a stranger, not considering the place as a permanent habitation; as, Abraham sojourned in Egypt.
"Syn.--abide, tarry, dwell, stay, live." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969), p. 1725.

Which means that you are merely transient with respect to your time here on earth:

"TRANSIENT. Passing by or away. XVII. -L. transiens (obl. transeunt-, repr. In some uses by transeunt), prp. of transire pass over, f. trans TRANS-+ire go; cf. AMBIENT." Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966), p. 936.

It does not mean you are "on the run" or "on the move." See Genesis 1:1-31 and nota bona how God in the Creation finished each day's work. Is God a "sojourner?" Now this has much to do with the present state of affairs in respect to your "real estate." If You are a Good and Lawful Christian Man or Woman, You are located at General Delivery, because this is where God's Court is: everywhere in general and nowhere in specific. It also means that His Court closes at the close of every day at sundown. If You are here, how can You conduct Your affairs for longer than a day? This is what it means to "sojourn."

Now this has to do with the land issue, because when You are "landed," the land is free from all encumbering servitudes, and You are depending on God to complete His Work with respect to You and the land in Your care in that day. This is the reason for Christ testifying, "Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." Mt 6:34. If you are walking with Mercurius, God does not sojourn with you.

In the coming year, Writs of Entry to Land.

Let This Mind Be In You,

Scripture tells us clearly, that in order to be Christ-like, we must learn to think and reason as Christ did. This does not mean that we are to be omniscient or to take on the extent of God's attributes. We are told, however, to "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus:..." Phil. 2:5, and Paul says that, "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ."

The closer we get to this state of thinking in interpreting the world about us, the more we glorify God. The problem is, modern Christians do not think in such terms because their Christianity occupies one part of their mind and thought, while the worldly side occupies another. This is what Dr. Rushdoony has called, 'intellectual schizophrenia.' We know that a mind or house divided against itself cannot stand, or be effective against the world's ideas.

Many Christians make a great deal of the literal interpretation of the Scripture, but when it comes to taking into captivity every thought, they divide their minds into the secular and profane and thus live in intellectual schizophrenia and a constant state of contradiction and what is worse, they never know it.

Recently on a tour stop back east, I was cornered in the hall by a group of people and their pastor, all from the same church. They proceeded to beat me about the head and shoulders with something I had said during an earlier address to the group, which was: "One may be a pre-millenialist and totally committed to the 'rapture fever, scare and share' doctrines that are being taught in the churches today, but one cannot at the same time work for reform without contradicting himself."

The pastor and his group proceeded to argue that they were both pre-mil, rapture fever types and also worked for reform, which is why they were at Our conference.

Note carefully, I did not say one could not work for reform if he were a pre-mil, rapture fever type, but that, one could not be consistently pre-mil, rapture fever, etc., and also work for reform.

My point had to do with consistent thinking, not whether one could in fact do or not do a thing. To this day, I still hold that one cannot - consistently - look for the Lord's return next Wednesday at 12:15 or 12:28, and still work for the reform of the world about him..

As a footnote to this incident, I received a message from one of the pastor's people who was present during the incident and he said that, time brought the pastor to his senses and my prediction came true. Given enough time, the errors of one's thinking will manifest themselves whether we like it or not.

The point in bringing up this incident is to illustrate that today, with all the intellectual tools at man's disposal, Christians are typically the most inconsistent, self-contradictory, and self-refuting thinkers of the day. Yet, these characteristics are supposed to be indicative of humanistic thought, not Christian thought.

If this movement we are involved in is to have any real long term success, then a radical change must take place in the quality of Christian thought if we are to have any long-term hope of reformation and reconstuction.

Two men who have perhaps, more than any others in America, pointed us in the right direction and to right thinking as Christians - are Dr. Cornelius Van Til, former Professor of Apologetics at Westminster Seminary, in Philadelphia, and Dr. Rousas John Rushdoony, founder of the Chalcedon Foundation in Vallecito, California, who is recognized as the father of Christian Reconstruction, the fastest growing movement of its kind in Christendom around the world.

In this article I want to focus on the thinking of Dr. Van Til, who passed on to be with the Lord a few years ago, on a Good Friday. His works indeed live after him in the minds and hearts of millions of laymen and also in the present works of many men of the cloth.

I met Dr. Van Til just a few years before his death and with Dr. Rushdoony, they have had a greater impact on my thinking than all the others I've read outside Scripture. I love them both as father's in the faith. It is my belief that these two men will, in the future, be recognized as the men that initiated the New Reformation now beginning in the land. We owe them both a great deal and ought to be on Our knees thanking God for His blessing us with their great learning (see Page fourteen for a sample of Rushdoony).

Though Van Til confined himself to apologetics, i.e., the defense of the faith, his thought was so fundamental that it sparked a new philosophy for Christians. Van Til's apologetics, when applied to philosophy is called Christian Presuppositional Philosophy, for reasons that will become clearer as we progress. His most important works are, "The Defense of the Faith," and "Common Grace." His widest influence on the greatest number of people, however, has come through his class syllabi, short works that summarize his teaching in his apologetics classes at Westminster.

Van Til begins with a very simple idea that has a very far reaching impact on every area of Christian thought. Basically, it is this: all systems of thought or ideas can be reduced to one of two starting points or, presuppositions as he called them that must be in the thinkers mind in order for him to say what he does. For example, one does not say 'praise the Lord Jesus,' unless one's ultimate starting point or presuppositon is Christian.

Thus, it does not matter whether one is a Christian or not; all ideas are derived ultimately from one of the two fundamental starting points or, presuppositions. Regardless of which presupposition one begins with, if one is consistent, his presupposition will govern the meaning of his ideas and what he believes and how he will act on his belief. In a sense, over time and history, one becomes what his presupposition is.

Thus, one's presuppostion predestines the nature and meaning of one's life. Von Hayek, the noted Austrian economists said something similar when he said that 'all ideas have consequences.' Rushdoony described the same thing in his own thought and called it 'the given.' Therefore, everyone begins from some ultimate starting point in all their thinking and that ultimate starting point determines the meaning and consequences of our thought in everything we say, do, feel, and think.

The difference in Van Til' (and Rushdoony) that caused such an uproar was, he said that both of these two starting points or presuppositions, are religious. The thought of all men is predestined by the ultimate, religious presupposition the man holds to. In theology, philosophy, law, science, biology, education, politics, the family, and all other things, a man who holds to one of the two possible starting points comes to one conclusion as to what these things are, while the man who holds to the opposing presupposition comes to an entirely different conclusion as to what they are.

If one knows which presupposition lies behind a thought or idea, one can predict - generally - the consequence of the idea in time and history, if one is consistent with his own presupposition. If one can predict the general outcome of an idea implemented on a specific presupposition, held self-consciously, one has a very powerful intellectual tool that can be used to great effect in propagating the Gospel and in combating humanism in the culture about us.

Now, when we say 'self-consciously' we mean that, one knows consciously, what his presupposition is and he knows consciously, the connection between his ideas and his presupposition and that his idea is consistent with his presupposition. One has a good idea of where it will all lead. The key is, he knows all this - consciously.

To be self-conscious of one's own thoughts is to know what one knows, and why one knows it. Thus, the self-conscious presuppositionalist does not do something because it makes him feel good, or because it gives him gratification, or gives him a thrill, but, because he knows that he does what he does because of his desire to be consistent with his ultimate presupposition. He does everything for a specific reason, that he himself knows about, consciously, and believes is true. He is not dependent on other men for his authority and even when men advise him, he will interpret the advice in the light of his presupposition.

This will be clearer if we define the two basic presuppositions that Van Til talked and wrote about all his life.

Presupposition One begins and ends with the idea that God is who He claims to be in Scripture, which is His own inspired revelation to Man. This is the presupposition of the Christian.

Presupposition Two holds to the idea that all knowledge is derived solely from man's reason which is a law unto itself. He does not believe that one needs or should harken to any revelation outside his own mind. This is autonomous reason at work in the religion of humanism.

At no point does either presupposition share a common starting point, and thus, they are called 'mutually exclusive ultimates' because, each denies the validity of the other, logically and in fact.

Both are religious in the sense that religion is the reverence or worship of an ultimate ground of appeal. The Christian appeals to God and Scripture, while the Humanist appeals to his own autonomous reason. They are similar in that each presupposes an ultimate starting point for all their thinking.

To show the importance of presuppositional study, consider the following.

A talks with B about some subject or idea and B comes to a conclusion. In the discussion, no mention of presuppositions is made. The idea and its consequence stated by B hangs in a vacuum and is mere opinion.

Why? Because there is no context for interpreting what man A or B says.

But, 'A does not allow B's conclusion to stand in a vacuum and he questions 'B' about his presuppositions. B does likewise to A. Now, we find that A and B are both Christian. The next move on the part of A is to determine if B's conclusion is valid on Christian presuppositions. If B's conclusion is consistent with his Christian presupposition, the conclusion no longer hangs in a vacuum, but rests on a solid foundation, because both sides are now speaking within the context of their presuppositions.

In the end, B's conclusion is tested by the law of Scripture if A is consistent with his own presuppositions.

But, suppose we now interject a specific idea, such as abortion. If B is pro-abortion, he is no longer thinking, consistently, as a Christian, because the Scripture opposes abortion. At this point, A knows that B is not thinking like a Christian, but like a humanist. B may still profess to be a Christian, but his ideas contradict him, and know A knows something about B, i.e., that 'B' is a double-minded man.

Now, if B is a humanist, his pro-abortion stand is more consistent with his avowed presupposition, but it is still not the right consequence, because abortion is contrary to God's Law. But, if B were pro-life and an avowed humanist, there is the inconistency all over again, because the pro-life conclusion is only possible on Christian presuppositions.

The point of all this discussion about A and B is, to illustrate how all men, most without knowing it, always argue questions that are important to them, on the basis of specific presuppositons, whether they are aware of it or not. And, most haven't got a clue as to whether or not they are being consistent with their presuppositions. The man who is consciously aware of the importance of knowing which presuppositon lies behind a specific idea, is in a position to know a great deal more than his friend who suffers from epistemological myopia.

Another premise of Van Til, equally radical, was, that the humanist never knows truth unless he smuggles God into his equation somewhere. In simple terms, the humanist may deny God's existence, or redefine His nature and attributes to eliminate His presence in humanistic thought, but, he must at the same time presuppose that God exists, or he would not even be able to communicate with other humanists.

For example, since 1900, there have been many continental philosophers who have sought to create 'new' philosophies, based upon the possibility of inventing languages that are devoid of so-called 'God-words.' Wittgenstein was typical of these. But, all such attempts have failed and the linguistic philosophers have given up for one simple reason. Language and communication between men is impossible without presupposing God's hand in the creation of languages.

In science, if a humanist conducts a scientific experiment and then expects that the experiment can be repeated with the same results, he presupposes on one hand that God has created a consistent universe of Law, while at the same time he posits, in his public speaking, that all is relative and chance rules in his theory of evolution. In other words, he wants his cake and he wants to eat it as well.

In this case, the humanist contradicts himself. What he says in his writings and speeches may be evolutionary in nature, but when he does real work, he must presuppose that God is in the background upholding and sustaining all things by His power. To think otherwise provides no justification for doing the experiment a second time and expecting his results to be the same in both cases.

Thus, to use an oft-quoted phrase of Van Til's, "the humanist possesses knowledge as a thief possesses goods." He steals knowledge from the very God whose existence makes knowledge possible in the first place and never admits it.

Van Til has also pointed out that it does not matter if a man knows his thought is religious or not, or whether he admits to his religious stance or not, he is still a religious being and thinker, even in his own ignorance of himself.

As Paul has said so tellingly, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness, Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their follish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."

Van Til took Paul literally, as he should have. This means that the atheist, agnostic, buddhist, and all others who deny the God of Scripture and His existence, still know in fact, that He does exist, whether their heart has been darkened or not. One can travel to the furtherest reaches of the universe and still not avoid the revelation of God that surrounds him, 'in Whom he lives, and moves, and has his being.'

Thus, a denial of God is an act of will that is ethical in nature and content. Evidence has nothing to do with it. Men deny that God is, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary and suppress their real knowledge of Him as a conscious act, knowingly, willingly, and deliberately to advance their own agenda while suppressing their true knowledge of Him..

Stop for a moment and think about this.

If Christians dealt with Non-christians, in their day to day dealings as if Paul's statement of fact is true, i.e., if this presupposition was the Christians' presupposition, then the Christian would know something about the Non-christian that the Non-christian believes he has hidden. What an enormous intellectual and psychological advantage this should be for the Christian!!!

More importantly, if Christians knew, consciously, that this was the case and acted consistently with this stance, and put into practice Van Til's extension of Pauls statement, what a difference it would make in the way Christians think.

How is this possible?

First, we have been talking about knowing. The sub-set of philosophy that deals with the problems of knowing is called epistemology. The word comes from 'episteme' (knowing) and 'ology' (the study of ...) Epistemology is the study of how we know, but also the basis of certainty in knowing. It asks the questions, 'how do you know, you know?'

And, if we look at today's philosophy teaching in universities, we find that while there is always an overview of what the great philosophers have said about epistemology, there is never any attempt to answer how one knows which system of philosophy really answers the problem of knowledge.

This is because humanist philosophic thought has given up trying to answer the questions of epistemology, because no sooner does the humanist attempt to answer it, than another humanist comes along and blows up the argument. This in-fighting between humanists, has destroyed all real philosophic study in the humanist controlled schools, because given their presupposition about knowing, i.e., that it proceeds from the autonomous reason of man, there is no solution to the problem of knowing. And, whether they know it or not, in their system, all knowledge is purely a matter of opinion.

The Christian, however, already has an answer to the problem of knowledge, knowing, and knowing how and why he knows. His answer is found in the Godhead, and in the words used to define God in Genesis 1:1.

But, first, let us look a little more closely at the nature of the problem of knowledge that epistemology tries to answer, for this problem has plagued philosophers since the Greeks and on the answer to the problem whole systems of government and civilizations have floundered and collapsed.

The solution to the problem of knowledge lies in solving the relationship between the whole and the parts, the one and the many, the universal and the particular.

An example of how the solution is applied might explain the seriousness of the effort to solve the problem. Thus, in civil government, we have the government (the one) and the people (the many). How do we balance the two ends of the spectrum here? Is a balance even desirable? If we cannot answer the problem of the relationship between the one and the many in civil government, then we are left in the following quandry:

If the scales favor civil government, then we will have some form of socialism, communism, a dictatorship, or other tyranny, that will be supported by the military, and there will be great bloodshed.

If the scales favor the power of the people, then we will have a democracy, autocracy, and finally, anarchy, and great bloodshed.

These two extremes are the history of civil government in the world, until the formation of the Constitution of the united States of America, which was the first instrument of civl government that explicitly sought to create a balance between the civil power and the power of the people. Needless to say, in the entire history of man, no Non-christian philosopher has ever set forth a solution to the problem of knowledge that lasted more than one generation. The basic reason why, is; they could not decide whether the one, or the many should dominate. Any idea of the two being balanced was out of the question, for no such thing was possible - given their presuppositions.

That the founders of America were aware of the problem of knowledge is well known. That modern man, including the modern Christian could care less, changes nothing. The problem of the one and the many in epistemology is of vital interest to all of us, whether we know it or not. Examples could be shown in virtually every area of life, in the family, the church, in one's calling, and so on.

Genesis 1:1, says: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Of specific interest is the Hebrew word for 'God,' which is 'elohim.' Elohim means, literally, 'unity and diversity, equally ultimate.'

As many commentators have pointed out, this says that God in His unity as God, is equally ultimate with God in His diversity as Father, Son, and spirit. In God, there is a perfect balance between Himself as One and as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Thus, in the name of God in the very first verse of the Scripture, there is the key for the Christian, to the problem of knowledge and the answer to the epistemological question of 'how do we know we know.'

Again, we see a telling example of the importance of the presupposition to all of our thought, including the answers we give to problems that face us. In Greek thought, the possibility of balancing the one and the many never occurred to them, because given the starting point of the autonomy of reason, they could only see the two extremes, the one, or the many, and because they knew not the God of Scripture, it never occurred to them that there was even a remote possibility that they could be balanced.

This is the reason why Greek thought vacillated between Socialism and Communism and ultimately collapsed. This is the reason why all subsequent systems of thought that began from the presupposition of autonomous reason also collapsed.

If the Scripture is the Christians' alpha and omega in all his thought, all facts, regardless of what they look like at first glance, must be interpreted by Scripture. No fact interprets itself. There is no brute fact, i.e., one that speaks for itself, because all facts can only have meaning when interpreted and understood in the light of God's Word, for the omniscient God of Scripture knows every fact that is, exhaustively.

For the non-believer, facts are only interpreted in the light of his own reason. This presents major problems for him, because he cannot know if his view of the facts is the true view. Another humanist will have a different view of the same fact. Neither has any standard by which to measure the truth or falsity of either view. Who knows, the meaning of the fact may change tomorrow, or next week, or next year. As to who's interpretation is actually put to use, well, that's all a matter of who has the greater power and influence. Truth has nothing to do with it.

This is why all humanistic systems of government can only maintain control by military force. And, why all power in humanism flows from the top down, not the bottom up.

Conversely, Christian civil governments de-emphasize military power and emphasize the rule of Law. And, why in Christian systems, power flows from the bottom up? "Not by power, but by My Spirit," sayeth the Lord.

Second, since the Christian knows that God created man in His own image and created all that is, then its possible for a Christian who thinks like God, analogically, to truely interpret the facts before him. All facts are created by the same God, including God's earthly interpreter, i.e., the Christian.

As Van Til would say, "we must learn to think God's thoughts after him." If this becomes our goal, to see and interpret all facts as God has already interpreted them, then the Christian can know truth and properly interpret reality, but he cannot know it exhaustively, as God does.

Third, in humanism, as suggested above, all facts are subject to change and hence there can never be any confidence in the humanistic view of any fact. This was the failing of Plato's view of the facts. By his own admission, Plato could not conceive of the ultimate idea of 'mud, hair, and filth.' He believed that he could conceive of the ideas of good, beauty, right, and justice, but he could not handle mud, hair, and filth, and for this reason, Platonic and Neo-platonic thought floundered on the rocks of skepticism. For one never knew when a fact such as mud, hair, and filth might turn up to change everything.

The Christian, however, with the Holy Spirit as his teacher and Scripture as his textbook of life and reality, can take confidence in the fact that God would not deceive him. Though he may not know any more than the humanist, what the Christian does know he can know truly and take confidence in it. The future for the Christian may not be known in great detail, but he knows also that God is in control and that all things work together for the Chritians good. As the Scripture says, "Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask for bread, will he give him a stone?" Matthew 7:9.

Fourth, with humanism, dominated as it is by relativism, uncertainty, and so on, we see that over time, the level of confusion and chaos must increase and the system must eventually collapse. Thus, a humanist may put a certain view of the facts into practice, but, as time goes on, his view will increasingly interpret the outcome of his view of the facts - incorrectly. He may see quite clearly, that there is something wrong, but he cannot possibly know, truly, how to fix it. He will then try something else, which will be just as wrong as his first view of the facts, because his relativistic reason cannot do otherwise. His second view will also be fraught with error as his first view was, and thus he will merely add error to error and the confusion level will rise accordingly.

When civil govrnments are dominated by humanism, the ideas never fail because they are wrong, but only because the civil power hasn't enough money or power to do it right. The result: at the next session of the legislature, more power and taxes will be demanded to fix the problems, "so that it will never happen again."

How many times do we hear the modern politician make a 'guarantee' to the people, that with only a little more power and taxes, 'thus and so, will never happen again.'

This process is further aggravated by the humanists' own ego that cannot admit that its interpretation of the facts was wrong the first time. No, such an admission would be tantamount to an admission that reason has failed with the obvious conclusion being, that for the answer we must turn to God, which in the humanists heart, he knows is always there. In short, he will not willingly repent of his first error, because he has no basis upon which repentence is possible.

We must not forget that there is no forgiveness for error (sin) in the humanistic system. How often have we seen them savage their own people, like pyrannha, when their mistake becomes public.

The Christian can, however, move forward with confidence in his interpretation of the facts, knowing all the time that he will likely have to modify his position as time goes on. We assume here, that the Christian has made a full study of the facts, both sacred and profane and that he has interpreted them by the Holy Spirit and Scripture. And, when he or a brother or sister in Christ, sees error in the first view of the facts, there can be an immediate repentence of the error, the view of the facts can be modified and one moves on. The Christian knows that in all he does, the Lord is guiding him, teaching him, and reproving him, because the Lord God loves him and cares for him.

Fifth, the humanist has great difficulty communicating his view of the facts to all men, both humanist and Christian. This is because he has no standard of meaning and content for his thinking that he can appeal to, or point to, to illustrate his meaning. In short, he has no Scripture. Thus, no matter how hard he tries, other humanists and Christians will always mis-interpret his view of the facts. The humanist is therefore constantly put in the position of explaining and justifying himself, especially as time goes on and more and more error is seen by all, in his original interpretation of the facts.

Humanistic egos will modify word meanings that depart from accepted meanings and the dictionary meanings. This is why humanistic thought, over time, constantly re-defines every area of life and thought in terms of its own god (reason). All ideas must be re-made in its own image, not conformed to the image of God that he bears within himself. This is no where more evident than in the humanist idea of law and justice, evidence of which is all about us, today.

But, for a Christian, the meaning of the words he uses are always controlled by Scripture. Communication between Christians and the meaning a Christian imparts to the humanist, should always be the same, because God is the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Law is thus always the same in its meaning and hence true justice is always available.

The form in which the law is applied by Christians, changes with time, but its meaning and God's intent in His Law, never changes.

Sixth, since the humanist cannot make up his mind whether the one or the many is ultimate, and he ignores the answer found in a balance of the two in the Godhead, he is also bound up in arguing over whether his method of reasoning is inductive, or deductive.

Deductive reasoning, reasons from the general, the one, to the particulars, or the many.

Inductive reasoning,, reasons from facts, particulars, or the many, to some general premise, i.e., the one.

In other words, the method of reasoning one uses will likely be determined by whether we are reasoning from the one or the many. The battle over which method is valid, especially in the sciences, has been long and bitter for centuries.

But, Van Til has made it clear, that given the solution to the problem of knowledge in the Godhead, the Christian is free to use both with equal emphasis and utility.

In sum, one can argue from the one to the many and back to the one or from the many to the one and back again. Both processes of reasoning are used without conflict. And, thus, deductive and inductive reasoning are compliments, not opposites.

Seventh, the realm of science and its prevailing whims have often been called upon to lead us in the right paths, and usually this means that one infers from certain facts, some new alleged truth about the meaning of the facts before us.

But, within the sciences, there is a pre-occupation with cause and effect. And, it is because of this doctrine of cause and effect that science has always sought some 'mechanical' solution to the problem of the orbits of planets.

On the one hand, science wants a cause for the planetary rotation, allegedly about the sun, but in his seeking for the cause to account for the rotational effect of the planets, he invariably leaves out of his equations, the fact of agency.

As Christians, we know, for example, that nothing happens without God's hand in it. In this age, God's agent is the Holy Spirit. And, we know that God sustains all things by his power. We also know that all things were created through Christ in whom we live and move and have Our being.

Thus, for the Christian, there is no bare cause and effect without God acting as the agent to keep everything in order and sustain it.

Thus, the problems that science faces in the doctrine of cause and effect, will often be sustained with great intellectual force, which are problems created by the scientist himself who has bought into a false dichotomy.

By the scientists attempting to account for the relationships between things and explaining it on the basis of cause and effect only, without God's hand in the picture, is to posit a false premise from the outset.

Eighth, is the problem of limits. Commonly, modern man asserts that he must have unlimited possibilities for finding a solution to any problem. This means, that he wants a world without limits to the possible paths down which his thinking may take him.

Yet, it is obvious to every man, great thinker or not, that man lives and moves and has his being in a world of limits.

The problem for the humanist is that, if he admits to limits on the possibilities for his thoughts or acts, he must tell us what those limits are and where the boundary lines are drawn, whether we speak of the intellectual world of the mind, or of the concrete world that we live in.

But, modern man and his humanistic leaders want to live in a world that has no defined limits, because the limits may get in the way of his freedoms, or the free exercise of intellecutal possibility. Apparently life is not complex enough for these people; they want to make it more complex.

This raises the subject of a talk show I saw many years ago, in which, Charles Williams, the brilliant black economist was being interviewed. Mr. Williams gave an answer to a question asked by the host that was very simple and direct. The host replied, "But, isn't the solution much more complex than that."

Mr. Williams looked the host in the eye and said: "Tyranny always takes refuge in complexity."

This telling destruction of the host's typical answer led me to think of what a great blessing it was to have the Law of God and all the statements of the historic creeds and doctrines that have come down to us from The Great Reformation.

God's revelation and the historic work of the church has defined for us the limits of possibility in the most crucial areas of Our thought and this is just one reason why the study of Scripture and great works of the church are so important.

God has, in effect told us, 'don't bother to look over there, you won't find the answers.' It is amazing that in the era of humanistic dominance and its obsession with 'freedoms,' that many books have been written on the subject ofpower of limits.

Ninth, the mind of man is a unity with yet great diversity of thought in a thousand areas of life. This is vital to understand the confusion in the world of thought, for it relates directly to the problems of correspondence and coherence.

These problems are concernced with some very simple questions, such as: does my thought really correspond to what's out there? How are my thoughts related to things about me? What does correspondence and coherence have to do with my presuppositions? If my thoughts correspond to things as they are, does that mean my thought is coherent?

Without a solution to the problems of correspondence and coherence we are mired in doubt, uncertainty, and indecision. It is these problems, that have plagued all modern philosophers since Immanuel Kant (1724-1802) and his "Critique of Pure Reason."

Since Non-christian philosophers have utterly failed to satisfactorily answer the problems, they no longer even raise questions about whether or not the image in my mind really corresponds to what's out there, or not .

If the image I have in my mind of the object out there, is not really what's out there, then there is no possibility of my thought and ideas being coherent.

The Christian, has no problem with either correspondence or coherence, because he knows that God has created all things, including the Christian, and thus everything is already coherent and related in a logical way. And, the questions of whether the object out there corresponds to the image I have of the object in my mind never comes up, because God has created us in His image and likeness and placed us within His creation in which we were designed to function.

Again, God would not deceive us and place us in an environment that he did not want us to understand.

At this point, we must realize that the process of being a Christian carries with it certain obligations that are usually ignored, if not deprecated, by the modern Christian; the goal of which is the 'renewing' of Our minds, and this means, changing the way we think.

Next month, we will move from the theoretical to the concrete and show how Dr. Van Til's view point can be applied towards the renewing of Our minds.

We can 'bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.'

(continued in Issue the Thirteenth)

(continued from Issue the Eleventh)

Part Four

...treaty, had instigated the Indians to raise the tomahawk and scalping knife against American citizens, had let loose the Algerines upon their unprotected commerce, and had insulted their flag, and pillaged their trade in every quarter of the world. These facts being notorious, it was astonishing to hear gentlemen ask how had Britain injured their commerce?

The conduct of France, on the contrary, had been warm and friendly. That nation had respected American rights, and had offered to enter into commercial arrangements on the liberal basis of perfect reciprocity.

"In contrasting the ability of the two nations to support a commercial conflict, it was said Great Britain, tottering under the weight of a king, a court, a nobility, a priesthood, armies, navies, debts, and all the complicated machinery of oppression which serves to increase the number of unproductive, and lessen the number of productive hands; at this moment engaged in a foreign war; taxation already carried to the ultimatum of financial device; the ability of the people already displayed in the payment of taxes constituting a political phenomenon; all prove the debility of the system and the decrepitude of old age. On the other hand, the United States, in the flower of youth; increasing in hands; increasing in wealth; and although an imitative policy has unfortunately prevailed in the erection of a funded debt, in the establishment of an army, in the establishment of a navy, and all the paper machinery for increasing the number of unproductive, and lessening the number of productive hands; yet the operation of natural causes has, as yet, in some degree, countervailed their influence, and still furnishes a great superiority in comparison with Great Britain."

"The present time was declared to be peculiarly favourable to the views of the United States. It was only while their enemy was embarrassed with a dangerous foreign war, that they could hope for the establishment of just and equal principles."

The real object of this report by the Secretary of State, and of the resolutions introduced by Mr. Madison, was stated in the course of the debate upon the latter. "The discussion of this subject, it was said, "has assumed an appearance which must be surprising to a stranger, and painful in the extreme to ourselves. The supreme legislatore of the United States is seriously deliberating, not upon the welfare of our own citizens, but upon the relative circumstances of two European nations; and this deliberation has not for its object the relative benefits of their markets to us, but which form of government is best and most like our own, which people feel the greatest affection for us, and what measures we can adopt which will best humble one, and exalt the other.

"The primary motive of these resolutions, as acknowledged by their defenders, is not the increase of our agriculture, manufactures, or navigation. but to humble Great Britain, and build up France."

And such was unquestionably their real character and object. But the intended operation of them, and of the language and sentiments uttered respecting them in debate, was so clear and explicit, that they could not be mistaken, and therefore they could not fail of producing their designed effect upon the feelings of the British government and people. Nor could they be viewed in any other light, than as expressing great hostility to the interests of that nation, and strong partiality to those of France. And hence may be discerned the first traces of that system of policy towards Great Britain, which originated with Mr. Jefferson, and was steadily pursued by him through the remainder of his political life, and by his immediate successor in the administration of the national government, until it terminated in the war of 1812.

To establish the truth of the position just advanced, it will be necessary to give a historical account of the measures of the government, relating to the general subject, under the administrations of Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison. The facts which will be adduced, will be derived from the public records and state papers, or from other sources equally authentic and creditable.

In April, 1794, Mr. Jay, then Chief Justice of the United states, was appointed minister extraordinary to the court of Great Britain. This mission was strongly disliked by the party of which Mr. Jefferson was the acknowledged leader. But notwithstanding their disapprobation it was pursued; and in November following, a treaty was concluded, in which the great causes of uneasiness and animosity between the two nations were adjusted, and a foundation laid for their future peace, harmony, and friendship. As soon as the news reached this country that such a treaty had been concluded and signed, and long before its contents were known, there was a great degree of excitement among what Mr. Jefferson called the republican party. Notwithstanding all the clamour, the treaty was submitted to the Senate, who advised its ratification, with the exception of one article. One member of that body, however, in violation of the injunction of secrecy under which they acted, and before the treaty was signed by the President, published it in a newspaper. Immediately upon its appearance, the country was thrown into a ferment, and every possible effort was made to induce the President to reject it. Meetings were held, violent resolutions were passed, and inflammatory addresses were made, and circulated, with the hope, if not the expectation, of overawing that dignified and inflexible magistrate and patriot, and of inducing him to withhold his final approbation from the treaty. The attempts all failed; - the treaty was ratified; and the nation derived from it numerous and substantial benefits.

But it met the most decided disapprobation of Mr. Jefferson. In a letter to Mann Page, dated August 80th, 1795, he says - "I do not believe with the Rochefoucaults and Montaignes, that fourteen out of fifteen men are rogues. I believe a great abatement from that proportion may be made in favour of general honesty. But I have always found that rogues would be uppermost, and I do not know that the proportion is too strong for the highest orders, and for those who, rising above the swinish multitude, always contrive to nestle themselves into the places of power and profit. These rogues set out with stealing the people's good opinion, and then steal from them the right of withdrawing it, by contriving laws and associations against the power of the people themselves. Our part of the country is in a considerable fermentation on what they suspect to be a recent roguery of this kind. They say that while all hands were below deck, mending sails, splicing ropes, and every one at his own business, and the captain in his cabin attending to his log-book and chart, a rogue of a pilot has run them into an enemy's port. But metaphor apart, there is much dissatisfaction with Mr. Jay and his treaty." In a letter to William B. Giles, dated December 31, 1795, he says- "I am well pleased with the manner in which your house have testified their sense of the treaty: while their refusal to pass the original clause of the reported answer proved their condemnation, the contrivance to let it disappear silently respected appearances in favour of the president, who errs as other men do, but errs with integrity." In a letter to Edward Rutledge, dated November 30th, 1795, he says- "I join with you in thinking the treaty an execrable thing. But both negotiators must have understood, that as there were articles in it which could not be carried into execution without the aid of the legislatures on both sides, therefore it must be referred to them, and that these legislatures, being free agents, would not give it their support if they disappproved of it. I trust the popular branch of our legislature will disapprove of it, and thus rid us of an infamous act, which is really nothing more than a treaty of alliance between England and the Anglomen of this country, against the legislature and people of the United States."

This animosity against the treaty cannot be counted for, on the ground that it was not a beneficial measure to the nation. After the excitement which its publication and ratification produced had subsided, its advantages were realized and acknowledged; and it may be said with safety, that no subsequent arrangement between the two nations has ever been as beneficial to the United States as this. But it removed many sources of difficulty - the western posts, which the British had retained in violation of the treaty of 1783, were surrendered; and the commerce of the country was greatly benefited. And it was calculated to remove a variety of causes of uneasiness, of complaint, of interference, and of recrimination, between the nations, and therefore was thoroughly reprobated by Mr. Jefferson. And it appears, by the last quotation from his letters, that rather than have it established, and go into operation, he would have rejoiced if the House of Representatives had encroached upon the constitutional prerogative of the President and Senate, and withheld the necessary legislative aid to carry its provisions into effect. The constitution authorizes the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties; and treaties, when constitutionally made, are declared to be the supreme law of the land. Of course, when thus made, if they require legislative acts to carry them into effect, the legislature are bound by their constitutional duty, to pass such laws; otherwise the supreme law of the land may be rendered inoperative, and be defeated, by one branch of the government. This bold experiment, Mr. Jefferson would have been gratified to see made, rather than have peace and friendship established between this country and Great Britain.

Nor is the coarse attack upon Mr. Jay's character, by Mr. Jefferson, in his letter above quoted, the least reprehensible circumstance in his conduct in relation to this treaty. Mr. Jay was one of the most pure and virtuous patriots that this country ever produced. His talents were of a very high order, his public services were of the most meritorious and disinterested description, and his public and private reputation without reproach. Yet, with an air of levity, approaching jocularity, he is represented by Mr. Jefferson as one of those fortunate "rogues," who contrive to keep themselves uppermost in the world, - one who had been guilty of an "infamous act " in making the treaty. Happy would it have been for his calumniator, if his character had been equally pure, and his services equally disinterested and patriotic.

When Mr. Jefferson came into office as chief magistrate of the Union, in 1801, Rufus King was minister from the United States to Great Britain. In June, 1802, that gentleman was instructed to adjust the boundary line between the two nations; and in May, 1803, in pursuance of his instructions, he concluded a convention with that government. A dispute on this subject had existed between the two countries, from the ratification of the treaty of peace in 1783, to the date of the above mentioned convention. In forming this convention, it is known that Mr. King's views were fully acceded to by the British commissioner, Lord Hawkesbury, the latter having left the draft of the convention to Mr. King, and fully approved of that which he prepared. In a message of the President of the United States to Congress, dated October 17, 1803, is the following passage- "A further knowledge of the ground, in the north-eastern and north-western angles of the United States, has evinced that the boundaries established by the treaty of Paris, between the British territories and ours in those parts, were too imperfectly described to be susceptive of execution. It has therefore been thought worthy of attention for preserving and cherishing the harmony and useful intercourse subsisting between the two nations, to remove by timely arrangements, what unfavourable incidents might otherwise render a ground of future misunderstanding. A convention has therefore been entered into, which provides for a practicable demarcation of those limits, to the satisfaction of both parties. The following is a copy of a letter from Mr. King, which accompanied the convention, when it was transmitted to the United States government "London, ] May 13, 1803.

"SIR,--I have the honour to transmit herewith the convention which I yesterday signed in triplicate with Lord Hawkesbury relative to our boundaries. The convention does not vary in any thing material from the tenour of my instructions. The line through the bay of Passamaquoddy secures our interest in that quarter. The provision for running, instead of describing, the line between the northwest corner of Nova Scotia and the source of Connecticut river, has been inserted as well on account of the progress of the British settlements towards the source of the Connecticut, as of the difficulty in agreeing upon any new description of the manner of running this line without more exact information than is at present possessed of the geography of the country.
"The source of the Mississippi nearest to the Lake of the Woods, according to Mackenzie's report, will be found about twenty-nine miles to the westward of any part of that lake, which is represented to be nearly circular. Hence a direct line between the northwesternmost part of the lake, and the nearest source of the Mississippi, which is preferred by this government, has appeared to me equally advantageous with the lines we had proposed." signed "RUFUS KING."

On the 24th of October, one week after the delivery of the message to Congress, from which the passage above quoted is taken, Mr. Jefferson submitted this convention to the Senate, accompanied by the following message "I lay before you the convention signed on the 12th day of May last, between the United States and Great Britain, for settling their boundaries in the north-eastern and north-western parts of the United States, which was mentioned in my general message of the 17th instant; together with such papers relating thereto as may enable you to determine whether you will advise and consent to its ratification."

A letter from Mr. Madison, Secretary of State, to Mr. Monroe, minister at Great Britain, dated February 14th, 1801, contains the following passage:

"You will herewith receive the ratification, by the President and Senate, of the convention with the British government, signed on the 12th of May, 1803, with an exception of the 5th article. Should the British government accede to this change in the instrument, you will proceed to an exchange of ratifications, and transmit the one received without delay, in order that the proper steps may be taken for carrying the convention into effect."

"The objection to the fifth article appears to have arisen from the posteriority of the signature and ratification of this convention to those of the last convention with France, ceding Louisiana to the United States, and from a presumption that the line to be run in pursuance of the fifth article, might thence be found or alleged to abridge the northern extent of that acquisition."

Then follow a series of reasons intended to show why the British government ought not to make objections to the alterations proposed by ours.

"First. It would be unreasonable that any advantage against the United States should be constructively authorized by the posteriority of the dates in question, the instructions given to enter into the convention, and the understanding of the parties at the time of signing it, having no reference whatever to any territorial rights of the United States acquired by the previous convention with France, but referring merely to the territorial rights as understood at the date of the instructions for and signature of the British convention. The copy of a letter from Mr. King, hereto annexed, is precise and conclusive on this subject.

"Secondly. If the fifth article be expunged, the north boundary of Louisiana will, as is reasonable, remain the same in the hands of the United States as it was in the bands of France, and may be adjusted and established according to the principles and authorities which would in that case have been applicable.

"Fourthly. Laying aside, however, all the objections to the fifth article, the proper extension of a dividing line in that quarter will be equally open for friendly negotiating after, as without, agreeing to the other parts of the convention, and considering the remoteness of the time at which such a line will become actually necessary, the postponement of it is of little consequence. The truth is that the British government seemed at one time to favour this delay, and the instructions given by the United States readily acquiesced in it."

It will be recollected, that in the message to Congress, on the 17th of October, 1803, from which we have just quoted a passage, Mr. Jefferson speaks of this convention as one that would give satisfaction to all parties. It seems, however, not to have been ratified, although it was submitted to the Senate for their approbation only one week after the date of the abovementioned message to Congress. All that can be ascertained respecting the causes of its rejection, are to be found in the above cited letter from the Secretary of State to Mr. Monroe, where the principal ground appears to be that it might in some way affect our concerns with France. By its rejection, however, the dispute about the boundary line was left unadjusted, and has remained so to this day.

Mr. Jay's treaty expired in 1804. As the country had experienced its beneficial effects for ten years, it was reasonable to expect that it would have been renewed at the earliest opportunity. On the 7th of August, 1804, Mr. Monroe, then ambassador from the United States to Great Britain, wrote a letter on that subject to Mr. Madison, then Secretary of State, from which the following are extracts.

I received a note from Lord Harrowby on the 3d instant, requesting me to call on him at his office the next day, which I did. His lordship asked me, in what light was our treaty viewed by our government? I replied that it had been ratified with the exception of the fifth article, as I had informed him on a former occasion. He observed that he meant the treaty of 1794, which by one of its stipulations was to expire two years after the signature of preliminary articles for concluding the then existing war between Great Britain and France. He wished to know whether we considered the treaty as actually expired. I said that I did presume there could be but one opinion on that point in respect to the commercial part of the treaty, which was, that it had expired: that the first ten articles were made permanent; that other articles had been executed, but then, being limited to a definite period which had passed, must be considered as having expired with it."

After a further detail of the conversation, the letter proceeds--

"He asked, how far it would be agreeable to our government to stipulate, that the treaty of 1794 should remain in force until two years should expire after the conclusion of the present war? I told his lordship that I had no power to agree to such a proposal; that the President, animated by a sincere desire to cherish and perpetuate the friendly relations subsisting between the two countries, had been disposed to postpone the regulation of their general commercial system till the period should arrive, when each party, enjoying the blessings of peace, might find itself at liberty to pay the subject the attention it merited; that he wished those regulations to be founded in the permanent interests, justly and liberally viewed, of both countries; that he sought for the present only to remove certain topics which produced irritation in the intercourse, such as the impressment of seamen, and in our commerce with other powers, parties to the present war, according to a project which I had the honor to present to his predecessor some months since, with which I presumed his lordship was acquainted. He seemed desirous to decline any conversation on this latter subject, though it was clearly to be inferred, from what he said, to be his opinion, that the policy which our government seemed disposed to pursue in respect to the general system, could not otherwise than be agreeable to his. He then added, that his government might probably, for the present, adopt the treaty of 1794, as the rule in its own concerns, or in respect to duties on importations from our country, and, as I understood him, all other subjects to which it extended; in which case, he said, if the treaty had expired, the ministry would take the responsibility on itself, as there would be no law to sanction the measure: that in so doing, he presumed that the measure would be well received by our government, and a similar practice, in what concerned Great Britain, reciprocated. I observed, that on that particular topic I had no authority to say any thing specially, the proposal being altogether new and unexpected; that I should communicate it to you; and that I doubted not that it would be considered by the President with the attention it merited. Not wishing, however, to authorize an inference, that that treaty should ever form a basis of a future one between the two countries, I repeated some remarks which I had made to Lord Hawkesbury in the interview which we had just before he left the department of foreign affairs, by observing that in forming a new treaty we must begin de novo; that America was a young and thriving country; that at the time that treaty was formed, she had little experience of her relations with foreign powers; that ten years had since elapsed, a great portion of the term within which she had held the rank of a separate and independent nation, and exercised the powers belonging to it; that our interests were better understood on both sides at this time than they then were; that the treaty was known to contain things that neither liked; that I spoke with confidence on that point on our part; that in making a new treaty we might ingraft from that into it what suited us, omit what we disliked, and add what the experience of our respective interests might suggest to be proper; and being equally anxious to preclude the inference of any sanction to the maritime pretensions under that treaty, in respect to neutral commerce, I deemed it proper to advert again to the project, which I had presented some time since, for the regulation of those points, to notice its contents, and express an earnest wish that his lordship would find leisure, and be disposed to act on it. He excused himself again from entering into this subject, from the weight and urgency of other business, the difficulty of the subject, and other general remarks of the kind."

By this correspondence it appears, that it was a part of Mr. Jefferson's policy, whenever Mr. Jay's treaty should expire, not to renew it. There were undoubtedly personal reasons for the adoption of this course. Mr. Jefferson, as has been seen, considered that treaty as an execrable measure, and regarded its ratification as opposed to the interests of revolutionary France, to which he was, in heart and soul, devoted. The advantages of the treaty had been so fully realized, that it was natural to expect that our government would have yielded at once to the offer of the British ministry to renew it. Their willingness to form a new treaty, upon the principles of Mr. Jay's, was repeatedly expressed, first by Lord Hawkesbury, in April, 1804, and afterwards by Lord Harrowby, in August of the same year....

Conclusion and comments in Issue the Thirteenth

Political Apostasy

by Rev. R. J. Rushdoony

The following two articles are reprinted from The Chalcedon Report, published by The Chalcedon Foundation, which is available by freely requesting it from the Foundation at:

P. O. Box 158, Vallecito, California {95251].

Man's most ancient heresy is humanism, and we first encounter it in Genesis 3:5; its essential faith is in man as his own god, knowing or determining good and evil, law and morality for himself. Very often man has expressed this faith by making himself, very openly, his own god; at other times, man objectifies his own goals and makes images which he calls gods. Very commonly, man has expressed his self-worship collectively in the state. In fact, the oldest religious institution in history is the state. The worship of the state has sometimes meant that the state has been seen as divine; at other times, its rulers; and at still other times, its offices. In modern thinking, the voice of the people is held to be god, and democracy is seen as divinely right.

Although the early church, and then the councils, notably Chalcedon in 451 A.D., fought against this re-divinization of the state, it returned in full force after a time. At first, it bore a Christian facade; then it became increasingly anti-Christian, covertly or openly.

As a result, especially in the twentieth century, we have seen a re-paganization of the state and of society, a trend strongly supported by the media. The U.S. Supreme Court, since c. 1952, has furthered this trend, as in Roe v. Wade, and, more recently, in the case of a Colorado state constitutional amendment securing special legal rights for homosexuals as a class. Only Justice Anthony Scalia opposed it, calling strong attention in his Romer v. Evans dissent, to the specious character of the majority opinion. There are, currently, more radical cases in process attacking the very life of the church. Our political candidates for offices high and low maintain a facade of piety with an absence of faith. Christians are treated as idiots who can be easily placated with meaningless gestures, as indeed too many are. However, a growing number of Christians are deeply disturbed over these trends, and at the tendency of prominent churchmen to act as chaplains to our modern caesars.

On the one hand, we have churchmen using 1 Timothy 2:1 and 2 wrongly, as though we are to pray for our rulers to be blessed. But the goal of the prayer is to be "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty," i.e., that they may leave us alone! We should pray for political rulers "and for all that are in authority" that they may be converted or judged or whatever is required. How can we ask God to bless our modern equivalents of Nero?

On the other hand, we have many who want to fight over everything, or resort to arms. Assuming for a moment the very unlikely prospect of winning, what difference would it make, given our current population? The old proverb is still true: You can't make a good omelet with rotten eggs. History shows us how ridiculous such efforts are, as does the present political scene.

The change we are required to make is by regeneration, not by revolution. Nothing short of that will satisfy our Lord. Since the French Revolution, the political heresy has strongly emphasized revolution as the true means of change. Such a view is a return to paganism, to a belief that external conformity is the key to a good society; it is an echo of Plato's insane Republic.

Politics must be an area of responsible action. Our Lord stressed patience and gradualism in the work of the Kingdom: "first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear" (Mk. 4:28); in other words, we cannot expect the full ear of corn when we have only just planted the seed! God warned Zechariah against all who have "despised the day of small things" (Zech. 4:10), for to do so is to despise the future. The gigantic starts are much noise and show but empty of results. It is political apostasy to trust in them, and a departure from common sense. Mark 4:28 should be our premise in every area of life.

Chalcedon's premise has been "first the blade." In our area of endeavor, as in all, we believe that this is what God blesses.

Nationalism

By R. J. Rushdoony

One of the problems to the modern intellectual is nationalism. It is a disturbing phenomenon to the modern mind because it is an irrational idea. Most modern national states are all made up of very different groups. Thus, a few European countries have substantial Celtic minorities whose desire for freedom is a real one. The Spanish Basques are intense in their insistence on freedom, and so on and on. Marxism is strongly opposed to nationalism, but the Soviet Union became an incubator for many national-istic causes on the part of various minorities.

Intellectuals have long promoted internationalism, a one-world order, but it seems as though efforts in that direction are counterproductive. Not only nationalism but localism is in resurgence.

Now nationalism is indeed irrational. Few countries have 'natural boundaries.' Even island countries have differing groups. Britain has the English, the Scots, and the Welsh, not the most harmonious of fellowships. Japan has, under the surface, very ancient and differing groups. Mexico has Indians, Spanish, and Mexicans.

Despite these problems, the modern nation state survives and reasserts itself. In the face of a growing internationalism, we have seen such break-ups as Czechoslovakia, the USSR and Yugoslavia. Others may soon occur.

At the same time, the drive for a one-world order is very great. Intellectuals and "liberals" see it as the intelligent and inevitable solution to mankind's problems. The formation of the modern state was, after all, in most cases the union of various states of differing characters. France was once a collection of nations, and Germany, well into the eighteenth century, was an array of very many states, great and small. Even now, many "Germans" prefer to identify themselves as Hessians, Pomeranians, Bavarians, and so on and on.

Our purpose is not to defend nationalism nor to criticize internationalism but to call attention to a modern fallacy. To call nationalism irrational does not mean that it is contrary to reason but it can mean that it is not a rational need. Rather, it can be a product of intelligent historical developments and necessities. Again, to call internationalism a rational idea does not make it a necessity. The world is too much influenced by Hegelian ideas which see the world state as the logical development. However, history is not the outworkings of reason, nor of Hegel's Geist or Spirit. Its goals and developments are not determined by what philosophers see as rational. Far from it!

The attempt to reduce history to a rational order and goal is a product of humanism from at least Plato (if not the Tower of Babel) to the present. But the "reason" governing history is not man's but God's: it is His sovereign purpose and decree. Its meaning is not to be found in man's reason but in God's eternal plan.

The goal of a one-world order in the Tower of Babel was to establish determination and control not in God but in man. The "good" society was to be created and determined by man, and its reason was man's idea of truth, and freedom from God. Nationalism has been a road-block to man's efforts to play god. The confusion of tongues serves to divide men for whom division, not sin, is the evil.

Nationalism does not necessarily mean "natural" and good divisions into nation states, but it at least provides a limited insurance against world tyranny. Precisely because the various forms of tyranny are growing, so too will the divisions. Marxism, the triumph of reason (usually bad reason) over history will continue to beget more nationalism. China may well see a return to various actually free realms within the united front but in effect a return to the old regional war lords. There is a rush to divide as the pressure grows to unite.

The intellectuals are so convinced of the rationality of their one-world state that they fail to recognize that the world does not move in terms of their rationalistic imagination. Contemporary attempts to determine the future of man rationally are doomed to fail because they have no roots in history nor in man's hopes for his future.

I. Belief in the mere humanity of Christ. COLERIDGE. 2. The quality of being human; devotion to human interests 1836. 3. Any system of thought or action which is concerned with merely human interests, or with those of the human race in general; the 'Religion of Humanity' 1860. 4. Devotion to those studies which promote human culture; literary culture; esp. the system of the Humanists 1832. 5. Comtism or Positivism, or, as it may be called, Humanism. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1933), page 931. Oxford University Press.

Humanism

(hiu maniz'm)

1. n. Any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values and dignity predominate, esp. an ethical theory that often rejects the importance of a belief in God. 2. Devotion to or the study of the humanities. 3. the studies, principals, or culture of the Renaissance humanists. Random House Webster's College Dictionary (1990), page 653.

i. The intellectual development of the 14th-16th centuries in Europe which sought to base all art and learning on the culture of ancient Greece and Rome. Humanism opposed itself to Scholasticism. The movement was nursed by the Church: such popes as Nicholas V, Pius II and Leo X were its champions, and such men as Cardinal Bessarion, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, Erasmus, Vives, and Pico della Mirandola among its leaders. But Humanism was well named; its enthusiasm was not tempered by control, it produced Carlo Aretino and Machiavelli as well as Dean Colet and St. Thomas More, and it helped pave the way for the Reformation. In the event, Scholasticism returned and again flourishes. Among the legacies of Humanism are the insubordination of the state, whether represented by a dictator or a soviet, arising from its classical doctrine of collective morality as opposed to personal morality; and the substitution of class distinctions for differentiation by function. "Humanism was..... mundane, pagan, irreligious, positive" (J.A. Symonds).

ii. In its more extended meaning, deriving from the above, Humanism is devotion to human interests or a system concerned with real or supposed human interests without reference to God or divine things; the belief in the self-sufficiency of the natural man, and of human values (cf.,Pragmatism). But see PERSON, i. The Catholic Encyclopedic Dictionary (1961), The MacMillan Co.

natural man

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." 1 Corinthians 2:14-16.

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

A valuable minister of the gospel recently made use of the following illustration, to impress on the minds of the members of his church, that they ought to exert all the influence they had on the side of Christ, whatever that influence might be. Suppose, said he, that the small fibres of which a cable rope is composed, were each a living creature, and suppose one of these fibres or threads, when the anchor is cast out, and the ship tossed by winds and waves, should say, "I will not hold; my strength is small, it will not bear an ounce. It cannot be of much consequence that it be exerted in holding the largest ship; I will let go;" and so that fibre or thread lets go. Another reasons in the same way, comes to the same conclusion--that its strength is so small that it can be of no use--and lets go; and so another and another, until two thirds of them have let go, and the rest of the fibres or threads composing the cable rope are broken in twain, and the ship driven ashore and wrecked.

Apt Illustration

The application is obvious. Let Christians, when they are disposed to imagine that they can have but little influence--too little to be of any use, and therefore they will not strive to exert themselves--think of the fibres or threads of the cable rope, and beware of letting go, lest for want of these little influences, the church is driven from its steadfastness; great detriment received and souls lost.

Religion

The genius of Christianity which is from God, like the solar fire, moves in a sphere of its own, far above earthly things; while it penetrates our mundane elements without being contaminated by them, it gives beauty and lovliness to every object and to every scene to which it imparts its life-giving energies, and over which it pours its celestial radiance. It touches the heart of the proud man, and he becomes humble as a little child; it touches the heart of the sensualist, and he becomes pure and heavenly; it touches the affections of the covetous, and he becomes liberal; it touches the chain of caste, and it melts; it touches the idols of the heathen, and they fall to the ground like Dagon before the ark of God; it touches the heart of savages, and they take their places among civilized men; it sends down its fructifying showers on the barren wilderness, and it blossoms as the rose; it smiles upon the desert, and the wilderness, and the inhabitants of the rock, the wandering bushmen, sing for joy and shout from the mountains; it touches the heart of the philanthropist, and the prisons are visited, the depressed are raised, the neglected are remembered, the wounds of the broken-hearted are bound up, the vicious are reclaimed, and the prodigal son is restored. It touches the heart of the missionary, and he goes forth, forsaking country, friends and ease, to preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ.

The Clock

Clocks are of various kinds. Some are of wood, some are brass, some of wood and ivory; others of various substances. They usually beat or tick once in a second; but sometimes twice. In order to have them continue to beat, they must be wound up once in twenty-four or thirty hours. One kind, however, will run eight days without winding up. If a good clock is wound up at suitable times, it will run twenty or thirty years and sometimes longer. This, some of you may say, is wonderful; but I can tell you something which is more wonderful still. There is a kind of machine which will run months and years without winding up at all. A machine, did I say? There are several hundred millions of them. They do not beat slower than a clock, the smaller ones faster. Mine beats just about once in a second, or sixty times in a minute. Some of them run one year; others not so long, others again ten, twenty, fifty, and occasionally more than a hundred years. One in England, a few years ago, ran one hundred and sixty-nine years.

Do you think I am jesting? By no means. The human heart, in an adult; beats sixty times in a minute, or once in a second; in a child, the motion is much swifter. I know a man who is over ninety-seven years old. His machine, or heart, has therefore beat constantly ninety-seven years.

It would be curious to estimate the number of times the heart of that old man has beat in his whole life. But this cannot be done with exactness, because it has beat sometimes faster than at others. But it has always beat at least sixty times in one minute; this is 3,600 times an hour, 86,400 times a-day, 31,547,600 times a-year; and during ninety-seven years, 3,061,087,200. Even now the machine is not quite worn out. It may last to one hundred years, and perhaps longer. The owner can walk a half mile or a mile at a time, and perform considerable light labor in the course of a day. The Perfect clock.

Issue the Thirteenth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

A Christian Stand Against Licensure...

Admissions and Confessions, Part One...

Let This Mind Be in You, Part Two...

Thomas Jefferson: Friend or Foe (conclusion)...

'Statism is Idolatry,' A Sermon by Pastor John Weaver...

A Christian Stand Against Licensure

by Greg Loren: Durand

Editor's Note

Today, We at the Christian Jural Society News greet with open arms our Brother in Christ, Greg Loren: Durand, who has written the following article on "State Licensure," which We find, as We hope you will, most edifying. The basis of his argument centers around two basic tenets dear to Us, and All Brothers in Christ: One, "What is required to fulfill the Law?; And, Two, "By whose authority do the 'licensors' do the things they do?" The answers can be summed up in two Scripture verses.

Turning to Romans 13:8, The Apostle Paul writes to our Brothers at Rome:

"Owe no man any thing, but to love one another; for he that loveth another, hath fulfilled the law."

When you have fulfilled the Law of God, what other duty is there outside of the love which the Word of God addresses? Have you not done your duty already when you came to Christ, and had a renewing of your mind and heart? Everything else is an interposition between your Self and God. Thus, licensure is such an interposition, because it creates a new obligation to another outside of love, and God; and becomes an addition to the Word of God. Licensure is not love; licensure is loveless and lawless.

And to answer the second question, We need look no further than The Word of Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in John 3:17-18:

"For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved. He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

Can the condemned create law? Can one who believes in the limited reason of man found in Constitutions, proclamations, codes, rules, and regulations be fulfilling the Law of God? Greg Loren leaves no doubt to what the answer is!!!

The Biblical Truth of Christ's Present Reign

Scripture openly and without equivocation proclaims the rulership of the Lord Jesus Christ. Contrary to the Premillennial/Dispensational views which are so popular in modern Evangelicalism, this rulership is not limited to the future when Christ will allegedly return to earth to sit on a literal throne in Jerusalem. According to Psalm 2:8, the nations have been given to Christ by the Father as His inheritance. We are told that this inheritance went into effect at Christ's resurrection and ascension to the right hand of the Father (Psalm 2:7; Matthew 28:18; Acts 2:33-35, 13:33-34; I Corinthians 15:24-28; Ephesians 1:20-22; Hebrews 1:5, 8, 13). Consequently, "the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!" (Revelation 11:15b). This rulership is not spoken of in the future tense, but as an established fact in the heavenlies which will continue to manifest itself throughout history and into eternity:

"Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, to order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward, even forever." (Isaiah 9:7).

Contrary to the Amillennial position, this rulership of the Lord Jesus Christ is also not limited to the Church. The kingship of Christ over the nations implies much more than merely the preaching of the Gospel; it necessarily involves the implementation of His Law in society as a whole, for a king who does not require obedience from his subjects is certainly no true king. Returning to Psalm 2, we find that both kings (civil magistrates) and judges are instructed to "serve the LORD with fear" (verse 11) and to "kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and you perish in the way" (verse 12). Those civil rulers who rebel "against the LORD and against His Anointed" and "take counsel together" to "break Their bonds in pieces and cast away Their cords," are warned that Christ "shall break them with a rod of iron" and "shall dash them to pieces like a potter's vessel" (verse 9). There is no ethical neutrality in God's government; there is no middle ground between God's Law and man's law; there is no philosophical "cease fire" between the victorious and advancing Kingdom of Christ and the defeated and retreating kingdom of fallen men. The only terms that Christ offers the rulers of the vanquished nations is either unconditional surrender or utter destruction; there will be no prisoners of war when the battle is over.

Christians are Ambassadors of King Jesus

So how does the established reign of the Lord Jesus Christ over the nations relate to Good and Lawful Christian Men and Women who have been adopted as Heirs of the Father and made Citizens of His Kingdom? Christ's instructions to His Church in Matthew 28:18-20 gives us the answer:

"All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

The so-called "Great Commission" is firmly founded on the fact that Christ rules all nations in fullness of power here and now - in history. Christians are "deputized" by Christ in this passage and entrusted with His power and His authority. As "ambassadors of Christ" (2 Corinthians 5:20) and "good soldier[s] of Jesus Christ" (2 Timothy 2:3), we are to be actively involved in "mop up" operations in this world: in the heavenly realm, all things are already accounted as being placed "under His feet" (Ephesians 1:22; Hebrews 2:8); in the earthly realm, this spiritual fact is made an actual fact through the work of individual Christians in taking dominion over the earth in Christ's Name (Genesis 1:28). God has "raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Ephesians 2:6), and He has "made us kings and priests" with Christ (Revelation 1:6).

If we are deputies of Christ, who has conquered the nations, what does this have to say about our relationship to the current martial powers occupying this country? Do we surrender our legal status as "joint heirs with Christ" (Romans 8:17) and forfeit His Dominion for permits to do and to own those things which are already given to us by our Father? Are we to exchange, as did Esau, our birth right for a "morsel of food" (Hebrews 12:16)?

Psalm 24:1 states:

"The earth is the LORD's and all its fullness, the world and those who dwell therein."

The LORD God through His Son Jesus Christ is the sole owner of all things, and even all people, in this world. His are "every beast of the forest... and the cattle on a thousand hills" (Psalm 50:10). His is the day and His is the night (Psalm 74:16). His is "the kingdom, the power and the glory forever" (Matthew 6:13). "He does whatever He pleases" (Psalm 115:3) with that which is His own, and He has graciously given us all things in Christ and instructed us to possess the land in His Name (Deuteronomy 1:8; Isaiah 57:13b). We are therefore the Caretakers of our Father's world and the Stewards of His possessions (Psalm 115:16).

In demanding licensure from Good and Lawful Christian Men and Women, the State is asking that we render to it the submission and tribute that Scripture requires us to give to God alone (Deuteronomy 6:13-14; Matthew 4:10). In its wicked rebellion, the modern State attempts to usurp the throne of the Lord Jesus Christ and sets itself up as the "gold image" to which all its subjects are expected to bow. However, we as servants of Christ need to realize that there is no neutrality in life; everything we do has an underlying religious implication. When we succumb to intimidation from the godless rulers of our time to submit our private property, our household pets, and even our children to licensure from the State, we are acting as if Christ the King no longer owns and rules over all things, but has been Himself vanquished by His enemies. Simply put, we are violating the very First Commandment, which tells us, "You shall have no other gods before Me" (Exodus 20:3).

The Ungodly State is a "Beast"

In the book of Revelation, the ungodly State is pictured as a "beast" which, in claiming for itself the prerogatives of God, is described as "speaking great things and blasphemies" (Revelation 13:5). The Christians of the first-century were under the military authority of Rome - a nation which openly proclaimed its rulers, the Caesars, to be divine. All those under the jurisdiction of Rome were required by law to publicly proclaim their allegiance to Caesar by burning a pinch of incense and declaring, "Caesar is Lord." Upon compliance with this law, the citizens and subjects were given a papyrus document called a "libellus," which they were required to present when either stopped by the Roman police or attempting to engage in commerce in the Roman marketplace. In this way, Roman society became, for all intents and purposes, closed to anyone not willing to adhere himself and his family to the established religion of Caesar-worship (statism). To be "a friend of the world" was, in a very real sense, to be "an enemy of God" (James 4:4b). This is the essence of Scripture's warnings to the early Christians against taking upon themselves the "mark of the beast":

"All who dwell on the earth will worship [the beast], whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world...
"He causes all, both small and great, rich or poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name...
If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever, and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.
Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus (Revelation 13:8, 16-17, 14:9b-12).

It should be remembered that "it was granted to [Caesar] to make war with the saints and to overcome them" (Revelation 13:7a). Our Brothers and Sisters were torn apart by wild animals in the Roman Coliseum and used as living candles in the gardens of Nero because they refused to offer up even a tiny pinch of incense in his name and proclaim that he, not Christ, was Lord. In essence, they refused to submit to licensure (permission) from the State to live and worship as God had commanded them.

Modern imperial America is very similar, in both its 'laws' and its social climate, to ancient imperial Rome. We are, as were the Christians of the first century, commanded by the godless "powers that be" to obtain the "mark of the beast" in our "right hand or forehead" by submitting to fictitious creation as commercial "persons" under the Fourteenth Amendment. We are confronted, as they were, with the increasing difficulty of "buying or selling" without Social Security enumeration, which is the modern "number of his name." It may very well be that our Lord has decreed that we shall soon suffer for His Crown and Covenant as did His servants before us and pay the ultimate price for our obedience. Because of this possibility, we would all do well to familiarize ourselves with the story of the three Hebrew youths in Daniel 3. They were, as we in America are today, subjects of the mightiest military power on earth. The pagan Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, like our current Federal government, had proclaimed himself to be the only god to whom the people were to submit and had even set up a golden image to which they were commanded to bow in symbolic worship of his name. When brought before the king and threatened with death in a furnace of fire for their disobedience to this edict, their response was respectful yet unwavering:

"O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If that is the case, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us from your hand, O king. But if not, let it be known to you, O king, that we do not serve your gods, nor will we worship the gold image which you have set up (Daniel 3:16b-18).

We as Good and Lawful Christian Men and Women are commanded by our Commander-in-Chief to be His witnesses before the nations (Isaiah 43:10; Matthew 10:32; Acts 1:8). Contrary to the proponents of the so-called "Patriot movement," we are not to be about the vain work of asserting our own personal sovereignty, but that of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is ***His*** flag which we are to follow and it is Citizenship in ***His*** State which we are to proclaim. In the faithful exercise of this duty, we are assured a great reward, if not in this life, then certainly in that which is to come. Though we may be persecuted by the haters of our Lord and even "beheaded for [our] witness to Jesus and for the word of God" (Revelation 20:4), we are not to "fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul" but rather "Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28).

Conclusion

Contrary once again to the secular patriotism ("Americanism") so prevalent in the tax-protest, state Citizenship, and sovereignty movements, America deserves to live on in history only if its people return to the Lord Jesus Christ and submit themselves once again to His Law. And since the Church is called to be "the salt of the earth" and "the light of the world" (Matthew 5:13-14), such will never happen until individual Christians begin to abandon their Federal benefits, revoke their licenses, forsake their corporations, and stand faithfully upon the promises of God's Word. A generation that is more enamored with the "cradle to grave" guarantees of "Egypt" than with the challenges of "the Promised Land" ahead, is a generation which God will judge and whose "corpses [will fall] in the wilderness" (Hebrews 3:17). Our King asks of such a people, "[Y]ou lift up your eyes toward your idols.... Should you then possess the land?" (Ezekiel 33:25). May the Lord grant that our children will remember us as those who stood as bold champions for the Crown Rights of King Jesus rather than those who grovelled at the feet of His enemies for a handout.

Let us conclude by returning once again to Psalm 2:

"Why do the nations rage, and the people plot a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying, "Let us break Their bonds in pieces and cast away Their cords from us."
"He who sits in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall hold them in derision. Then He shall speak to them in His wrath, and distress them in His deep displeasure." (Psalm 2:1-5).

Admissions and Confessions

Part One:

Written and compiled by John Joseph

The Bankruptcy of The United States

The following begins the series, 'Admissions and Confessions,' which is intended to document full disclosures by 'government officials.'

John Joseph's commentary is in italics.

Robert Bork once said that the majority of people who are in vinculis (in chains), are in jail because of the admissions and confessions they made to those seeking them out. They, however, are not alone. All admissions and confessions are usable, and We keep a record of these admissions and confessions to help Us understand their pre-suppositions, perspective, and eschatology. Their admissions and confessions are full disclosure, making 'fraud' very hard to prove, and the burden of proving any issue is on those who affirm the issue, not on those who deny it.

For the same reason, God has given His Word in Scripture to light and guide the Christians path in their lives here on earth. Whatever is not prohibited by Scripture is permitted. Whatever is condemned by Scripture is prohibited. We are then left with this: because Scripture has been notice to all, then all are without excuse, which includes any allegation of deceit or fraud. So, bringing actions or accusations of fraud, when these disclosures have been fully made and approved of by the public, are for naught.

The Congressional Record

March 17, 1993---H1303

(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and expand his remarks.)

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11.

Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest re-organization of any bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government.

We are setting forth hopefully a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner's report that will lead to our demise.

Mr. Trafficant has openly admitted that the United States, i.e., the federal corporation established in 1871, is bankrupt, and that Congress is merely managing the bankruptcy, the largest such bankruptcy in history. But, who are They Trustees for? The bondholders of the national debt!! What is being used as collateral for the bondholders, in order to avoid receivership? These are the questions we must find the answers to in other admissions and confessions that are yet to be found and understood.

The point is, this bankruptcy would not have happened if the Scriptures, God's Word, had not been abandoned by Christians.

"Nunquam res humanae prospere succedunt ubi negliguntur divinae, or Human things never prosper when divine things are neglected." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2151.

We are without excuse. It is up to Us to set things right for our Posterity, in order to give them a better start in Christian living than what We may or may not have been enjoined with.

Letter from the CEO and

Postmaster General, Marvin Runyon

excerpts from 1997 Postal Service Employee Brochure

"I am pleased to introduce to you the indicator that we will be using from now on to measure our financial performance - Economic Value Added, known as EVA.
"An important part of our mission is in our name--the United States Postal Service. We serve the American public. Like shareholders in a private, for-profit business, the American people are our stakeholders.
You are critical to the success of EVA. Examine what you do, devise ways to do it better, and use EVA to measure the effectiveness of your ideas. Working together, we must review how we do things, how we invest capital--both dollars and people--to get things done. Think of ways to improve how we move the mail, get more out of our product line, use capital more effectively, and maximize the return on the capital we use".

So, Mr. Runyon considers the American people stakeholders!! What is a stakeholder?

In Black's Law Dict., 6th Ed., pg. 1404:

Stakeholder. "Generally, a stakeholder is a third party chosen by two or more persons to keep on deposit property or money, the right or possession of which is contested between them and to be delivered to one who shall establish his right to it; and it is one who is entitled to interplead rival or contesting claimants to property or funds in his hands. Cochran v. Bank Hancock County, 118 Ga.App. 100, 162 S.E.2d 765, 770. A person who is or may be exposed to multiple liability as the result of adverse claims. A stakeholder may commence an action of interpleader against two or more claimants. New York C.P.L. R. Sec. 1006. See also Interpleader.
A person with whom money is deposited pending the decision of a bet or wager (q.v.) His function is to receive the sums wagered and hold them against the determining event, whether that event be a horse race or otherwise, and then pay them over to the winner."

It appears that the American people have been reduced, through the bankruptcy, to 'multiple liability' and holders of the fictions in a giant krap shoot.

Mr. Runyon also admits that not only dollars, but also people, are capital. So, what is capital?

From the same Law Dictionary, page 208:

Capital. "Accumulated goods, possessions, and assets used for the production of profits and wealth. Often used equally correctly to mean the total assets of a business. Sometimes used to mean capital assets."

How does it feel to be considered 'accumulated goods, possessions and assets,' of Commercial Babylon and the bondholders thereof?

State Insolvency and Foreign Bondholders

by Edwin Borchard, pp. 123-128,

published by Yale University Press, 1951

State or National Insolvency

"State insolvency may take various forms, some mild, some drastic; it may be open and acknowledged or disguised, such as devaluation of the currency or unit of payment; it may relate only to interest, principal, or sinking fund, or to some or all of these in combination; it may be in good faith or bad, unavoidable or willful; it may be formally acknowledged by legislation or be undeclared and left to inference. It may involve discrimination among different creditors or among different groups of creditors, nationals, or foreigners, or among foreigners of different nationality. [As in the case of Germany, which claimed in 1933 that its favorable trade balance with Holland and Switzerland enabled the Reich to treat bondholders of those countries more favorably than American bondholders. See Charles R. S. Harris, Germany's Foreign Indebtedness (London, Oxford University Press, 1935), p. 53.] It may involve discrimination between large and small bondholders, between holders of the floating debt and long-term bondholders, between secured and unsecured creditors, according to or in violation of the terms of the loan.

"The types of state insolvency have been classified as follows: state bankruptcy may be divided into (1) the total nonperformance of (a) the obligation to pay the principal, (b) the duty to pay interest, or (c) of both duties simultaneously; (2) the partial nonperformance of the obligations mentioned under (a), (b), (c). [For other classifications of the types of state insolvency, see Madden and Nadler, Foreign Securities, pp. 264 ff., who distinguish between defaults as to interest; suspension of interest; reduction of interest without consent of the lender; cancellation of interest and agreement to pay principal only; imposing of new coupon taxes which reduce the interest on the loan; and defaults as to principal; forced conversion of loan without consent of the lender; suspension of amortization charges; alienation of pledged revenues; compulsory prolongation of a loan that has matured].

Korner, Staatsschuldentilgung und Staatsbankrott, pp. 80, 87, Jeze, loc. Cit., says:

'History affords many examples of States failing to fulfill their engagements. Thus, States may suspend the payment of interest or sinking fund; they may perform their obligations in a currency different from the one stipulated in the contract; or they divert revenues assigned for the service of the debt to other purposes.' Feilchenfeld, in Quindry, Bonds and Bondholders, Rights and Remedies, Vol. II, sc. 647, distinguishes between default, quasi confiscatory measures, confiscation and repudiation, voiding. Winkler 'Defaults and Repudiation of Foreign Loans,' Foreign Policy Association, Information Service, August 3, 1928, IV, 235, enumerates the following forms of government default: (1) reduction of the rate of interest; (2) delay in the payment of interest; (3) suspension of payment of interest; (4) reduction in the rate of interest through the levy (subsequent to the flotation of the loan) of taxes upon the rate of interest agreed upon; (5) delay in payment of principal; (6) forced conversion of loans; (7) reduction in the principal amount of loans; (8) payment of 'gold' loans in depreciated currency; (9) reduction in the amount of sinking fund payments; (10) suspension of the sinking fund; (11) reduction of both interest and sinking fund; (12) repudiation of both interest and principal.]

1. Nonpayment of interest--by reducing the rate, by postponing the payment for a period, by complete and indefinite suspension of interest payments, by reduction of the coupon interest by a special tax on the coupons in breach of the [loan] contract.

2. A failure to fulfill the obligations as to repayment of principal, either by postponing the duty to repay, by transforming the obligation in to a different type, including compulsory conversion, by reducing the capital amount of the debt, by depreciation of the prescribed standard of payment either through devaluation, through going off a metallic standard on to an inconvertible paper basis.

This type of insolvency was known even in ancient Rome. In ancient times the amount of metal in the coin was debased so as to make it less valuable. In modern times, the unit of currency is depreciated ["debased"] or "devalued" or a promise to redeem in gold is repudiated by redeeming in paper of an arbitrary or uncertain value. Thus, under the French law of June 28, 1928, the French franc lost four fifths of its value. The devaluation may confirm an existing depreciation, as in France, or it may deliberately and suddenly depreciate or "go off gold" as in England in 1931 and the United States in 1933. From 1864 to 1879 the United States currency was not redeemable in gold. The French assignats of the French Revolution, bonds issued as currency and "secured" on state lands, became worthless. Managed currency has left the paper without a reliable basis for in any fixed value. Excessive issues of paper constitute a method of depreciating the monetary unit in which a debt is "repaid." The unit retains its character as legal tender. Germany had this experience in 1922, and the German courts, down to the time in 1923 when the currency was completely destroyed, held that "a mark is a mark." Foreign bondholders of German marks had to bear the loss as did nationals. Ginlini v. The Reich, R. G. IV, 359/26, January 27, 1927. Mortgages, insurance policies, and other obligations were by statute revived or revalued (Aufwertung) at 12% of their face amount.

After World War I the payment in an inflated paper currency of an obligation contracted in a metal currency became common throughout many of the exbelligerent countries. It is a form of confiscation and admission of insolvency. Russia entered on such a transaction in 1839, though in Russia it affected practically only Russian creditors. This Russian affair has been characterized by writers as an intentionally fraudulent transaction, for they took silver away from the people and gave them worthless paper in its place.] or through a marked inflation. [Sometimes a combination of all three.]

"3. A reduction or repudiation of interest payments and the simultaneous reduction or repudiation of the capital debt.

"4. The 'blocking of foreign exchange' by transfer prohibitions or licenses, with a deposit in untransferable currency of funds representing the debt charges. This amounts to a retardation or suspension of payment, possibly for an indefinite period, although the debt is not repudiated nor open insolvency admitted."

In effect, martial law is used to secure the bondholder's rights to the payment of the bonds. This is one of the 'reasons' for the continued 'permanent state of emergency' since 1933.

The most important question is: Is the bankruptcy real and legitimate or a created fiction by 'the powers that be.'

Only through diligent research and the sharing of information by all who seek The Truth, will there be a re-establishment of the inherited Dominions which Our Lord and Saviour has given Us, to be Good Stewards over.

(continued in Issue the Fourteenth)

Let This Mind Be In You

(continued from Issue the Twelfth)

The Flaw in Modern Christian Thought

In the so-called golden Age of Scholasticism (the 10th to 13th centuries), Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), a Roman Catholic scholar, tried to merge the thought of Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) and Christ. He sought to take the best of what he found in Aristotle and merge it with the best of Christianity, and thereby create a system of thought that would account for both the inner and outer world of man's existence. Aquinas set forth his ideas in a very large work, called Summa Theologica.

Thomas failed to realize that he was not thinking like a Christian, because he depended on his own reason to tell him where Aristotle's thought ended and Christianity began. It never occurred to Thomas to see Aristotle in the light of Christianity and Scripture and by so doing, discover major flaws in Greek philosophy. He merely assumed that Christianity was limited to the inner man, the realm of grace, and that the outer man in the realm of nature, was under reason. Most important of all, Aquinas never asked whether it was even possible for such a merger of two mutually exclusive systems, in the first place. His first presupposition was--that his own reason was capable of achieving such a thing.

The result was, Thomas bifurcated man's existence by splitting man's mind into two different realms, with each under a different authority, neither of which came under the authority of Christ and Scripture. The inner man literally came under the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, while the outer man, in the world of nature, was under the authority of Aristotle and reason. The Roman Church thought so much of Aquinas' work, that he and his work were canonized and became the accepted doctrine of the Church at Rome.

Thomism began to collapse, however, as the victim of its own bifurcation, and it fell, as Aristotle's idea of reason was applied by later generations of thinkers that revealed the hidden flaws, or presuppositions of Thomas Aquinas. The problem was then, and still is--if Christ has nothing authoritative to say about the world of nature, perhaps He has nothing authoritative to say about anything else. Christianity became increasingly irrelevant to the new humanism that gave birth to the Renaissance and autonomous reason was enthroned as king, in principal.

The Reformation reacted against the Renaissance. We have all heard how the Reformation began with Martin Luther (1483-1546) nailing his Ninety-six Thesis to the door of the Wittenburg church in Germany, but, what most do not know is, the Reformation asserted that Christ was King over the inner and outer man, over both Grace and Nature. The Great Reformation rejected any bifurcation of man existence, and asserted the contrary, by calling the excesses of the Roman Catholic Church into question on the authority of Christ and Scripture alone.

This is the background to the popular phrase of Our founding father's: "No King but Christ." This is the core of John Calvin's (1509-1564) great work, "The Institutes of the Christian Religion," first published in 1536. Calvin's work called all thought into question that did not conform to the Scriptures of God. It is Calvinism that is embodied in the marginal references of the Geneva Bible, the Bible of the Reformation and the early Puritans.

Interestingly, Leonardo Da Vinci, the chief example of Renaissance man, spent the last two years of his life wallowing in skepticism as the guest of the King of France. Ironically, this great icon of the Renaissance arrived at the French Court at the same time as Calvin's Institutes.

Calvin's body was barely cold in his grave, when a challenge to his views came down the pike in the works of Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609) who said that Calvin's idea of predestination did not do justice to reason and free will. It was ignored by Arminius's followers that Calvin wrote very little about predestination. Luther's "Bondage of the Will," was an earlier and larger work on predestination.

At any rate, Arminius's followers wrote a Remonstrance against Calvin and the Calvinists responded with a Counter-remonstrance. A heated debate followed that led to a split in the Reformation into the Calvinists who held to the Sovereignty of God and the Arminians who asserted the sovereignty of free will. A total of five points of disagreement stood between the two camps.

Key to Arminian doctrine is the assertion that man cannot be responsible for sin unless he has a free will. Appealing not to Scripture, but to the ego of man, Arminians assert that man's will is free to resist God's Will which is beyond the sovereign power of God.

It has apparently never occurred to the Arminians that the phrase free will nor its equivalent never appears in Scripture nor has another more telling question ever arose, i.e., would or could God, ever create something that was beyond his power to control???

Thus, as Aquinas asserted that nature was under the authority of reason and not under the authority of God and Scripture, so also did Arminius assert that man's will was under his own control and guided by his own reason. Today, more than ninety percent of the modern Protestant Evangelical churches are Arminian in doctrine, if not explicitly, then implicitly.

The result is, Christ occupies one part of mind and thought, while the worldly side occupies another. This is what Dr. Rushdoony has called, 'intellectual schizophrenia' and it is this intellectual schizophrenia that is the primary reason why the Christian church has become so ineffective against the advance of humanism.

Until the work of Cornelius Van Til and his contemporaries, no one bothered to seriously challenge whether or not the question of responsibility vs. free will, vs. predestination, vs. etc., etc., was even a valid question.

In other words, is man responsible because he has a free will, or is man responsible for some other reason? If it can be shown that man is responsible whether he has a so-called free will or not, then the whole of Arminianism goes out the window, and here is where Van Til comes to the defense of the Christian position, for reasons which will become clearer further on.

Just as surely as quantities equal to the same thing are equal to each other, the form, language, and even the meaning of words may be altered, but the essential core of an idea, its meaning or content, never change the way it is manifest in history, and the same consequences always follow the same idea.

If we assume that any part of a man's life or thought is outside the power and authority of God, then it will not be long, before other aspects of life are removed from God's authority. Once the toe is in the door, the foot soon follows, and one area of life after another is all of a sudden thought of as outside the authority of Scripture and Our King, Jesus Christ. "As a man thinketh, so is he." Man does what he thinks. As Aquinas, so also Arminius, and so also the modern Christian church.

Thus, the rule confirmed by the history of thought is, grant the exception in one case and there is no reason why the exception cannot be granted in every case. This is the inescapable consequence of any idea that seeks to assert itself as being based in some area outside the realm of God's Power and Authority.

In concluding this part, we say; if this law reform movement we are involved in is to have any real hope for long term success, then a radical change must take place in the type and quality of Christian thought that we apply to the problems that face us, and Our righteousness must exceed that of the fathers if we are to stand any hope of success.

Enter Presuppositional Philosophy

As we have mentioned before, Van Til begins with a very simple idea that has a very far reaching impact on every area of Christian thought. Basically, it is this: all systems of thought or ideas can be reduced to one of two starting points or presuppositions as he called them that must be in the thinkers mind in order for him to say what he does. For example, one does not say 'praise the Lord Jesus,' unless one's ultimate starting point or presupposition is Christian. Or, to put it another way, Non-christians do not knowingly make statements in support of Christianity, if they understand what they are saying, in the first place.

It is not a matter that some, or only the most important ideas are derived from an ultimate presupposition; all ideas are presuppositionally based, and all Our ideas can only be derived from one of two fundamental starting points or, presuppositions. Regardless of which presupposition one begins with, a specific idea with a specific meaning or content is always derived from the same presupposition. The presupposition behind an idea and its meaning is not arbitrary. Thus, we may speak of law, as an idea, but the meaning of law and its consequence in practice, is absolutely determined by one's presupposition. One kind of law always stems from a particular presupposition and a different kind of law stems from the opposing presupposition.

The presupposition behind an idea and its consequence must be consistently maintained. Often, one may begin with an idea of law based on a very specific presupposition, but while applying the idea, one can be side-tracked, without realizing it, or one may know that one has deviated from his original idea's meaning and still continue without a return to his original meaning. Usually, this is justified by asserting the necessity to be practical, or in the interests of compromise, or some similar excuse. The fact remains that one has contradicted ones self and is now working on a new presupposition that will change the intended consequence of the idea over the long term.

It takes courage to be consistent with one's presupposition and follow it to its logical consequence. There are always influences about us which demand that we go along to get along. But, if one is to be honest to ones self and to his compatriots, he must maintain consistency, and then his presupposition will truly govern the meaning of his ideas and what he believes and how he will act on his belief. In a sense, over time and history, one becomes what his presupposition is--if the presupposition is maintained consistently and acts as a real check on one's thinking.

As shown last month, all thoughts of all men are predestined by the ultimate, religious presupposition one holds to. In theology (or atheology), philosophy, law, science, biology, education, politics, the family, and all other things, this is the case. And, in the end, one who holds to one presupposition comes to one conclusion as to what these things are, while one who holds to the opposing presupposition comes to an entirely different conclusion as to what they are.

If one knows which presupposition lies behind a thought or idea, one can predict - generally - the consequence of the idea in time and history, if one is consistent. Yet, one must know, self-consciously, what his own presupposition is, how it is put into practice, and what impact to expect from his presupposition over time. And, when we say one must know, self-consciously, we do not mean it in the sense that one 'suspects' or feels good about his presupposition, nor do we mean that the presupposition is held in a subjective, or emotional sense. One must know everything possible about his own presupposition in as much detail as possible, and know how it differs from an opposing presupposition.

To know self-consciously means, to know consciously, to be self-conscious of one's own thoughts is to know what one knows, and why one knows it. Thus, the self-conscious presuppositionalist does not do something because it makes him feel good, or because it gives him gratification, or gives him a thrill, but, because he knows, consciously, that he does what he does because of his desire to be consistent with his ultimate presupposition. He does everything for a specific reason, that he himself knows about, consciously, and believes is true. He is not dependent on other men for his authority and even when men advise him, he will interpret the advice in the light of his presupposition. This will be clearer if we define the two basic presuppositions that Van Til talked and wrote about all his life.

Again, harking back to last month's article, we know that the two basic presuppositions of all men are either; one, God is Who He claims to be in Scripture, and two, the reason of man is autonomous and can know all truth without any reference to God or revelation.

At no point does either presuppositions share a common starting point, as each mutually excludes the other from its own system. Both are religious in the sense that both appeal to an ultimate.

In the discussion last month between Man 'A' and 'B' we also pointed out the importance of presuppositional analysis and how all of us think in terms of Our presuppositions whether we know it or not.

Theology vs. Atheology

Since all men are created in the image and likeness of their Creator, potentially, all men could think in such a way that their thought would correspond to the way things are, be coherent and consistent with God's view of reality. Further, the concatenation of ideas, i.e., a sequence of, or string of ideas put together, line upon line, would make logical sense and there would be no contradiction.

But, one effect of sin is the corruption of the image of God in man which divides men and introduces confusion and contradiction that is only corrected, potentially, by the regeneration of man's spirit through salvation by the Grace of God.

We use the word 'potentially,' to emphasize the difference between what is possible and what in fact exists at the moment. Man may be saved by God in an instant, but sanctification takes a lifetime. We may plant the seed of an apple and say that it is an apple tree, but, it will take a good many years and considerable care before it actually becomes a tree that produces apples, assuming all the necessary pre-conditions are in place, i.e., good soil, plenty of water, etc.

At any rate, men divide on presuppositions. Yet, all need the same things that are basic to their existence because all are created by the same God. Whether one is a Christian or humanist, the over-whelming need of man is to fulfill the image and likeness of God impressed on his nature. The Christian can fulfill his needs and realize his potential through sanctification, the study of Scripture, and the agency of the Holy Spirit, the humanist cannot because his only tool is his own reason, which is confused by his effort to suppress the image of God impressed on his nature.

Like the blind man, the humanist will grope in the dark, trying to fulfill the image of God within him, but on his own terms and presuppositions, not on Godly terms and presuppositions. Humanists need salvation, sanctification, justification, and fulfillment of all the other God-placed needs within him, but he has no potential to achieve them, in fact and in a way that corresponds to the way things are.

And, while all men have the same needs, two entirely separate means are applied to fulfill them. For the Christian, needs are fulfilled by God, while, for the humanist, needs are fulfilled by autonomous reason.

At the bottom of this page is a chart of ideas classified by whether the idea is based upon the Christian or humanistic presupposition. The chart can be extended to include as many ideas and related categories of ideas as one can think of. Additional ideas of a general nature can be added to this list, but enough is shown to illustrate the point. We can now take any of the general ideas and break them down into more specific sub-categories, which can in turn, be broken down into greater and greater detail. In this chart, the impact of the presuppositions are more clearly seen. Since the primary focus of this study is to arrive at a systematic Christian approach to Law and civil government through the right system of thought, some detail has been added to the idea of the State in the chart on Page seven. Note, under the humanist idea of the State, the State takes on the nature and attributes of God. As long as such a State exists, it will seek to fulfill its presupposition as 'the State is God walking on earth,' and it will attempt to emulate in the State, all the nature and attributes of the image of God that is stamped on the humanists nature.

There is a very subtle difference between humanistic States before and after Christ that is worth noting. Before Christ, the principal form of civil government was a monarchy bound to an official state religion that was often polytheistic in its expression. The king was expected to promote and publicly support the State religion and was often the head of both church and state.

The king was more or less deified and autonomous reason dominated, especially with the Greeks who sought to bring the idea of autonomous reason more to the forefront in the idea of philosopher kings. Alexander the Great was typical of this type of ruler. In each state, military power was essential and since much of this power was drawn from mercenary armies, the king must have a very healthy treasury in order to secure the allegiance of his armies and navies. Since resources within a state are limited, the need to sustain military power meant that kings coveted the wealth of other nations and kings. Thus, for most states in this period before Christ, conquest was a way of life.

After Christ, there began to be a tension between church and state under the growing influence of Christianity. In the Hebrew republics based on Scripture, there was a separation between church and state, i.e., Moses was head of the state and Aaron was head of the church. Both adhered to the Law of God but the church had only the power of excommunication, although it could bring charges from its ecclesiastical courts. This remained true in the Christian West until the 19th and early 20th centuries when the churches sacrificed their authority in these areas for the sake of evangelism.

In humanistic states after Christ, from about 400 A.D., kings justified their authority by right of inheritance and divine right, which was still supported by a very healthy military power.

But, from the time of Wycliffe (1320-1384), Christians began to challenge divine right and the doctrines of primogeniture (the laws of inheritance), on Biblical grounds. Wycliffe asserted that even kings were subject to the Law of God and thus, as in the best Hebrew states, the final authority in both church and state was Scripture, with the result that, humanism declined. It is worth noting that the best Hebrew states existed before the reign of kings, i.e., under the judges, and only rarely after that. Indeed, after the installation of Saul as King of Israel, the reign of kings was erratic and often the reign of one or another was as different as night and day.

With the re-emergence of humanism in the Renaissance and again in the mid-nineteenth century, autonomous reason is disguised because of the recognized power of Christian thought. Autonomous reason, as a general concept implements its ideas in the State, but under the guise of compassion and concern for the welfare of those less fortunate.

Here we must digress a bit to make a very important observation.

First, both the Roman and modern state's begin from the same presupposition, i.e., that the State is god walking on earth.

Second, both engage in bread and circuses, i.e., social welfare. Both even had widespread abortion practiced.

But, the Roman state made no pretenses that its reason for welfare was compassion and concern for the less fortunate. In Rome, state welfare was the only way the masses could be kept in line and not openly rebel against the Army and the Emperors. Yet, the idea of compassion and concern for the less fortunate is an idea that originated in the Old and New Testaments, and no where else. In all pagan states before Christ, social welfare was implemented purely as a tactical move by the state, to keep the masses in tow, i.e., to help the masses enjoy their slavery.

The modern welfare state, however, has borrowed an idea from Christianity and incorporated it as a major component of justification for a social welfare state, but the end result is the same as it was under the Roman Imperial powers--high tax rates and only a thinly disguised slavery for both rich and poor.

The point of this digression is simply to provide yet another example of what we have been saying throughout this series of articles. The appearance or form may change from one era to another, but the same ideas, implemented on the same presuppositions, always end with the same consequences. And, it does not matter one whit whether the idea is ancient or modern.

The modern disguises began by borrowing Christian buzz-words, especially in the Abolitionist Movement. By 1860 and Lincoln's War Against Christianity, the disguise didn't have to be very good because already the church had lost its ability to think in a consistently Christian manner and discern the times.

Thus, pre-Christian ideas of the state were manifest as monarchies based on autonomous reason, modern states embody autonomous reason in a President or Prime Minister. Humanistic states still seek to realize the all-powerful, all-knowing, omnipresent god/State. And as with the Pre-christian states, it can never realize itself fully, because invariably, as the power of the State increases, other factors begin to build that undermine a states ability to govern.

Notes on Income Taxes

While it is not mathematically definable as yet, it is clear that there is a maximum point at which a state may tax--Lawfully. Any tax beyond this maximum Lawful tax rate (MLTR) must be illegal as a form of theft, however it is disguised.

States may tax well beyond the MLTR for years. But, this short term gain solution--if continued--produces long term pain, because the state is consuming so many resources out of a finite potential populace, that it adversely affects the economy as a whole and the entire system just implodes on itself.

The question is, is there some idea of what the maximum Lawful tax rate should be???

At this point, we cannot say. However, Drs. Rushdoony and Young have written a book entitled "Tithing and Dominion," which, with careful study, may bear something more than a mere guideline for taxes. The MLTR for purposes of sustaining civil government, seems to be about four percent (4%).

This is based upon a systematic breakdown of how the mandatory Biblical Tithe was distributed in ancient Israel. Roughly, it is as follows:

Four percent for civil government,
Four percent for education,
One percent for the pastor,
One percent for the church or synagogue buildings. This total equals the tithe, or tenth as it was known.

Americans now pay about fifty-one (51%) percent of their income in taxes and the Founding Fathers went to war over an annual per capita tax rate of three percent (3%)!!!

What is more interesting is, once upon a time, Americans paid income taxes that amounted to 21% of the Federal Budget when the tax rate was about 18% per capita.

Now, the tax rate exceeds fifty percent, but, only accounts for about eleven percent (11%) of the total Federal Budget. In other words, the tax rate goes up by nearly sixty percent (60%), but accounts for only half of what it once took care of in the Federal Budget! What's going on here!!!

Most people believe that without income taxes the government would go belly-up, but as these numbers (available from government sources) show, as the tax rate goes up, the effective percentage of the Federal Budget paid by personal income taxes goes down. Imagine that!!!

Knowing these things, it should surprise no one that the modern states under the old Roman Imperial system (still supported by a vast military power) can never collect enough taxes or power to have enough to meet their needs as the humanistic state begins to crumble from the vacuum of its own presuppositions.

Over time, humanistic states become less efficient, failures become more obvious, the consumption of resources cripples a states economy, corruption rises, it is more and more arbitrary, and so on. But, as with Pre-christian states, so also with the modern states with respect to their military power which is always considerable, and conquest continues and expands until the bitter end of it all.

Thus, all Non-christian systems of civil power must become tyrannies supported by military force for a state that has no Law.

The will in humanism is the glorification of man whose principal agent in achieving this is always a state of Godly proportions and powers that can never be realized. They must centralize power in the One (the State), at the expense of the Many (the people) because the humanistic state never has enough power to make certain that it will not fail.

A tyrant merely seeks to realize the alleged potential of his presuppositions. The irony is, that such can never be realized in fact and reality over the long term, but the tyrants presuppositions blind him to this fact. The situation is further aggravated by the fact that no matter what the humanistic state does, it cannot erase the image of God in man that always lies in the background as a latent conscience, as a thorn, to annoy and remind the humanist that he is failing to realize his presuppositional fantasy.

The Christian on the other hand knows the state is not God and that it must be controlled by laws rigidly defined according to Scripture. The Christian knows that all the Laws of the state must conform to God's Law, or, as Blackstone has said, they are no law at all. The Christian knows that when the state is properly defined and its nature and purposes limited by Scripture, that its goal of justice for the poor, the widowed, and the orphaned and the protection of life, liberty, and property is achievable to such an extent that the Spirit of truth will lead the people into all righteousness and prosperity and that the Glory of God will be manifest where ever man casts his eye.

Then all men will know that Christ is on His throne and all is right with the world above and the world here and now. Then peace will walk among us in the Spirit of Him in Whom We live and move and Our being.

Chart 'A'

General Ideas

Christianity/Humanism

Theology/Atheology

Philosophy/Autonomous Reason

The Christian state/The secular State

The Family/The Resource Unit

God's Law/man's law

In next month's issue, we will begin the task of defining the details of Chart B and thereby bring some substance in Our system of thinking.

(continued in Issue the Fourteenth)

(continued from Issue the Twelfth)

Conclusion

The following will conclude this series on The Hartford Convention's investigation into the policy of The United States Government that led to The War of 1812 and Thomas Jefferson's role thereof.

For those interested in this subject, 'The History of The Hartford Convention' 447 pages, written in 1833 by the Secretary of that Convention, Theodore Dwight, is available on special request from the Christian Jural Society Press, in re-copied book form.

The Hartford Resolutions and John Quade's comments on the full book, follow on Pages eleven, twelve and thirteen.

...and Lord Hawkesbury, in a conversation with Mr. Monroe, "went so far as to express a wish that the principles of the treaty of 1794 might be adopted in the convention, which it was then proposed to make; and Lord Harrowby informed him, "that his government might probably, for the present, adopt the treaty of 1794, as the rule in its own concerns, or in respect to importations from our country, and as he understood him, all other subjects to which it extended." He even went further, and said, if the treaty had expired (about which Lord Harrowby appeared to doubt) the ministry would take the responsibility on itself, as there would be no law to sanction the measure." But Mr. Monroe, acting under his instructions, was not willing to authorize even an inference, that the treaty of 1794 should ever form the basis of a future one, repeated to him the remarks he had previously made to Lord Hawkesbury, and observed, that in forming a new one, we must begin de novo -- that we were then but little experienced in our relations with foreign countries; that our interests were better understood on both sides than when the treaty was made--and that in making a new one, we might introduce into it what suited us, omit what we disliked, and add what experience might suggest to be proper.

The idea that the agents on the part of the United States, in this attempt at negotiation, understood the interests of their country more thoroughly than those connected with the negotiation of 1794, is but little short of ludicrous. The treaty negotiated by Mr. Jay, in its operation and effects, proved to be a most beneficial one to the country; and it is a little remarkable, that no subsequent arrangement with Great Britain has been equally advantageous. Under Mr. Jefferson's directions, an effort was constantly made to procure some provision against impressment--an object, certainly of great importance to our country. But, when it was found impracticable to induce the British government to enter into stipulations on that subject, it might well be doubted whether it was good policy, by insisting upon an impracticable measure, to sacrifice all the other advantages which must necessarily arise from a just and reasonable commercial treaty with that nation. To this day such a stipulation has not been obtained; but the disadvantages experienced by the trade of the United States, for the want of a treaty like that negotiated by Mr. Jay, have been numerous, and greatly detrimental. Those advantages were lost by not renewing that treaty; and the treaty was not renewed, it is believed the facts will warrant the declaration, because it comported with Mr. Jefferson's policy, at all times, to keep alive a controversy with Great Britain.

In April, 1806, William Pinkney, of Maryland, was appointed joint commissioner with Mr. Monroe, for the purpose of settling all matters of difference between the United States and Great Britain, "relative to wrongs committed between the parties on the high seas, or other waters, and for establishing the principles of navigation and commerce between them." Their negotiations were held under the ministry of Mr. Fox, who was considered as a great friend to the United States. Owing to his sickness, the business on the part of the British government was placed in the hands of his nephew, Lord Holland, and Lord Auckland. On the 11th of September, 1806, the American commissioners wrote to the secretary of state, giving him an account of their first interview with the noblemen abovementioned, in which, when noticing the matter of impressment, they say- "On the impressment subject it was soon apparent they (Lords Holland and Auckland) felt the strongest repugnance to a formal renunciation or abandonment of their claim to take from our vessels on the high seas such seamen as should appear to be their own subjects." And such was the answer, from first to last, to every attempt to come to a formal arrangement on this perplexing subject. Every ministry of Great Britain, however differently disposed on many other subjects, on this thought and acted alike. With all the evidence that they possessed of the impracticability of negotiating successfully on this topic, Mr. Jefferson made it the turning point of all his efforts. In pursuance of this determination, on the 3d of February, 1807, Mr. Madison, secretary of state, wrote to Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney, and after having alluded to the matter of impressments, said- "In the mean time, the President has, with all those friendly and conciliatory dispositions which produced your mission, and pervade your instructions, weighed the arrangement held out in your last letter, which contemplates a formal adjustment of the other topics under discussion, and an informal understanding only on that of impressment. The result of his deliberations which I am now to state to you, is, that it does not comport with his views of the national sentiment, or the legislative policy, that any treaty should be entered into with the British government which, whilst on every other point it is limited to, or short of strict right, would include no article providing for a case which both in principle and practice, is so feelingly connected with the honour and sovereignty of the nation, as well as with its fair interests; and indeed with the peace of both nations.

"The President thinks it more eligible, under all circumstances, that if no satisfactory or formal stipulation on the subject of impressment be attainable, the negotiation should be made to terminate without any formal compact whatever."

On the 3d of January, 1807, Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney wrote to the Secretary of State, saying- "We have the honour to transmit to you a treaty, which we concluded with the British commissioners on the 31st of December. Although we had entertained great confidence from the commencement of the negotiation, that such would be its result, it was not till the 27th, that we were able to make any satisfactory arrangement of several of the most important points that were involved in it. A large proportion of the provisions of this treaty,--no less than eleven of its articles--was taken from that of 1794." After giving an account of the various articles, those gentlemen say--

"We are sorry to add that this treaty contains no provision against the impressment of our seamen. Our despatch of the 11th of November, communicated to you the result of our labours on that subject, and our opinion that, although this government did not feel itself at liberty to relinquish, formally by treaty, its claim to search our merchant vessels for British seamen, its practice would, nevertheless, be essentially, if not completely abandoned. That opinion has been since confirmed by frequent conferences on the subject with the British commissioners, who have repeatedly assured us, that, in their judgment, we were made as secure against the exercise of their pretension by the policy which their government had adopted in regard to that very delicate and important question, as we could have been made by treaty."

This treaty was received at Washington the beginning of March, 1807, but was never even submitted to the Senate for their advice and consent to its ratification. On the 20th of May following, Mr. Madison wrote to Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney on the subject. The following is an extract from his letter:--

"The President has seen in your exertions to accomplish the great objects of your instructions, ample proofs of that zeal and patriotism in which he confided; and feels deep regret that your success has not corresponded with the reasonableness of your propositions, and the ability with which they were supported. He laments more especially that the British government has not yielded to the just and cogent considerations which forbid the practice of its cruisers in visiting and impressing the crews of our vessels, covered by an independent flag, and guarded by the laws of the high seas, which ought to be sacred with all nations.

"The President continues to regard this subject in the light in which it has been pressed on the justice and friendship of Great Britain. He cannot reconcile it with his duty to our sea-faring citizens, or with the sensibility or sovereignty of the nation to recognize even constructively, a principle that would expose on the high seas their liberty, their lives, every thing, in a word, that is dearest to the human heart, to the capricious or interested sentences which may be pronounced against their allegiance by officers of a foreign government, whom neither the laws of nations, nor even the laws of that government, will allow to decide on the ownership or character of the minutest article of property found in a like situation."

"It is considered, moreover, by the President, the more reasonable, that the necessary concession in this case should be made by Great Britain, rather than by the United States, on the double consideration, first, that a concession on our part would violate both a moral and political duty of the government to our citizens, which would not be the case on the other side; secondly, that a greater number of American citizens, than of British subjects, are in fact impressed from our vessels; and that, consequently more of wrong is done to the United States than of right to Great Britain, taking even her own claim for the criterion.

"On these grounds, the President is constrained to decline any arrangement, formal or informal, which does not comprise a provision against impressments from American vessels on the high seas, and which would, notwithstanding, be a bar to legislative measures, such as Congress have thought, or may think proper to adopt for controlling that species of aggression."

"That you may the more fully understand his impressions and purposes, I will explain the alterations which are to be regarded as essential, and proceed then to such observations on the several articles as will show the other alterations which are to be attempted, and the degree of importance respectively attached to them.

"Without a provision against impressments, substantially such as is contemplated in your original instructions, no treaty is to be concluded."

After a long series of instructions, and remarks, relative to the manner of conducting the negotiation, and of the concessions that may, if necessary, be made, it is said--

"Should the concession, (relating to the employment of seamen belonging to the respective countries,) contrary to all expectation, not succeed, even as to the essential objects, the course prescribed by prudence will be to signify your purpose of transmitting the result to your government, avoiding carefully any language or appearance of hostile anticipations; and receiving and transmitting, at the same time, any overtures which may be made on the other side, with a view to bring about an accommodation. As long as negotiation can be honourably protracted, it is a resource to be preferred under existing circumstances, to the peremptory alternative of improper concessions, or inevitable collisions."

Thus, it is apparent, that this treaty was rejected primarily on the ground, that no arrangement was made in it to prevent the impressment of seamen. Of the importance of such an arrangement, had it been practicable, there can be no difference of opinion among the inhabitants of the United States. But when it was perfectly ascertained, that no stipulations on that subject could be obtained, that every successive cabinet in England had agreed on this point, and the question only remained for our administration to determine, whether all the relations of the two nations, and impressments with them, should be left in a loose, undefined, and irritating condition, or all except that should be satisfactorily adjusted, leaving that for future consideration, no reasonable doubt can be entertained that the latter course should have been pursued. It will be recollected that the standing reason urged by Great Britain, against yielding the principle that our flag should protect the crew was, that she was struggling against the power of revolutionary France for her existence, and depended on her navy for her safety; and that under such circumstances she could not admit the force of mere abstract principles--self-preservation being with her the highest object of consideration. There certainly was much force in this objection on her part, to treating on that specific point, at that critical period. That Mr. Jefferson should feel differently from the British statesmen, was perfectly natural. It has been shown that his governing principle in politics was, animosity against Great Britain, and attachment to France. It was well known, that from the strong national resemblance between Britons and Americans, and particularly from the identity of language, great difficulty would exist in distinguishing between American citizens and British subjects; and this was one argument strongly urged against negotiation on this subject. But a clue to Mr. Jefferson's feelings towards that nation, may be discovered in his works published since his death, beyond the passages already quoted. The following is a letter to William B. Giles :--

"Monticello, April 27, 1795.
" DEAR SIR, - Your favour of the 16th came to hand by the last post. I sincerely congratulate you on the great prosperity of our two first allies, the French and the Dutch. If I could but see them now at peace with the rest of their continent, I should have but little doubt of dining with Pichegru in London next autumn; for I believe I should be tempted to leave my clover for awhile, to go and hail the dawn of liberty and republicanism in that island."

This is the language of Mr. Jefferson, when writing to an intimate and confidential friend. What must have been the principles and the heart of the man, who, from mere political feelings and resentments, could talk with such an air of levity, on such a subject? Wishing to dine with Pichegru in London, necessarily implied a wish that he might, as well as a belief that he would, be able to invade, overrun, and conquer Great Britain. That is, because the people of that nation preferred the government under which they lived, and which had been the means of elevating their country to a far greater height of freedom, prosperity, power, and renown, than any other European nation ever enjoyed, to Mr. Jefferson's notions of republicanism, he would have subjected them to all the miseries and horrors of an invading and victorious army, and to the tremendous consequences which must necessarily follow such a state of things, in such a country . Fortunately for Europe, and the interests of the civilized world, he was disappointed of the pleasure to be derived from such a festive entertainment. The French were not able to conquer Great Britain, and of course Pichegru had no opportunity of inviting his republican friends in other parts of the world to dine with him in London, and to heighten the hilarity of the entertainment, by witnessing the pillage and butcheries which must have attended a conquest over such a city.

The Hartford Resolutions

15th day of December, 1814

The delegates from the legislatures of the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode-Island, and from the counties of Graflon and Cheshire in the state of New-Hampshire and the county of Windham in the state of Vermont, assembled in convention, beg leave to report the following result of their conference.

"Resolved, That it be and hereby is recommended to the legislatures of the several states represented in this Convention, to adopt all such measures as may be necessary effectually to protect the citizens of said states from the operation and effects of all acts which have been or may be passed by the Congress of the United States, which shall contain provisions, subjecting the militia or other citizens to forcible drafts, conscriptions, or impressments, not authorized by the constitution of the United States.

"Resolved, That it be and hereby is recommended to the said Legislatures, to authorize an immediate a:nd earnest application to be made to the government of the United States, requesting their consent to some arrangement, whereby the said states may, separately or in concert, be empowered to assume upon themselves the defence of their territory against the enemy; and a reasonable portion of the taxes, collected within said States, may be paid into the respective treasuries thereof, and appropriated to the payment of the balance due said states, and to the future defence of the same. The amount so paid into the said treasuries to be credited, and the disbursements made as aforesaid to be charged to the United States.

"Resolved, That it be, and hereby is, recommended to the legislatures of the aforesaid states, to pass laws (where it has not already been done) authorizing the governors or commanders-in- chief of their militia to make detachments from the same, or to form voluntary corps, as shall be most convenient and conformable to their constitutions, and to cause the same to be well armed, equipped, and disciplined, and held in readiness for service; and upon the request of the governor of either of the other states to employ the whole of such detachment or corps, as well as the regular forces of the state, or such part thereof as may be required and can be spared consistently with the safety of the state, in assisting the state, making such request to repel any invasion thereof which shall be made or attempted by the public enemy.

"Resolved, That the following amendments of the constitution of the United States be recommended to the states represented as aforesaid, to be proposed by them for adoption by the state legislatures, and in such cases as may be deemed expedient by a convention chosen by the people of each state.

"And it is further recommended, that the said states shall persevere in their efforts to obtain such amendments, until the same shall be effected.

"First. Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers of free persons, including those bound to serve for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, and all other persons.

"Second. No new state shall be admitted into the Union by Congress, in virtue of the power granted by the constitution, without the concurrence of two thirds of both houses.

Third. Congress shall riot have power to lay any embargo on the ships or vessels of the citizens of the United States, in the ports or harbours thereof, for more than sixty days.

"Fourth. Congress shall not have power, without the concurrence of two thirds of both houses, to interdict the commercial intercourse between the United States and any foreign nation, or the dependencies thereof.

"Fifth. Congress shall not make or declare war, or authorize acts of hostility against any foreign nation, without the concurrence of two thirds of both houses, except such acts of hostility be in defence of the territories of the United States when actually invaded.

"Sixth. No person who shall hereafter be naturalized, shall be eligible as a member of the senate or house of representatives of the United States, nor capable of holding any civil office under the authority of the United States.

"Seventh. The same person shall not be elected president of the United States a second time nor shall the president be elected from the same state two terms in succession.

Resolved, That if the application of these states to the government of the United States, recommended in a foregoing resolution, should be unsuccessful, and peace should not be concluded, and the defence of these states should be neglected, as it has been since the commencement of the war, it will, in the opinion of this convention, be expedient for the legislatures of the several states to appoint delegates to another convention, to meet at Boston in the state of Massachusetts, on the third Thursday of June next, with such powers and instructions as the exigency of a crisis so momentous may require.

Resolved, That the Hon. George Cabot, the Hon. Chauncey Goodrich, and the Hon. Daniel Lyman, or any two of them, be authorized to call another meeting of this convention, to be holden in Boston, at any time before new delegates shall be chosen, as recommended in the above resolution, if in their judgment the situation of the country shall urgently require it.**

This document was immediately published, arid extensively circulated through the country. It was looked for with much anxiety, and of course was read with great avidity. The expectations of those who apprehended it would contain sentiments of a seditious, if not of a treasonable character, were entirely disappointed. They looked in vain for either the one or the other, and were obliged to acknowledge that no such sentiments were to be found in it. Equally free was it from advancing doctrines which had a tendency to destroy the union of the states. On the contrary, it breathed an ardent attachment to the integrity of the republic. Its temper was mild, its tone moderate, and its sentiments were liberal and patriotic. Many leading members of the party who had always adhered to the administration and supported the war, did not hesitate to declare that it was an able and unexceptionable document; and politicians of every party, and of all descriptions, agreed that it displayed great ability, and contained principles and sentiments of much importance to the welfare of the nation.

John Quade's Comments

Jefferson's Legacy and Lincoln's War Against Christianity

After reading "The History of the Harford Convention," all of us at The Christian Jural Society Press have come to the following conclusions.

The number of parallels between Thomas Jefferson and modern presidents since Wilson and Roosevelt, is such that, in truth, he is almost the archetype for the modern reality. Here was a man obsessed with power on his own terms, and one who, believed in his own importance for the right development of world history. This product of French Enlightenment culture, engaged in intrigues while occupying the White House that resulted in the War of 1812, even though the War did not begin until after he had left the presidency, but, more important, was the long term impact of Jefferson's policies and his Anti-christian spirit.

We have seen how Jefferson's obsession with everything French and hatred of everything British led to his using the impressment issue against England while using his power in the White House to aid France. Even though Jefferson had the opportunity to gain a treaty by ignoring the impressment issue, he used impressment to justify opposition to the treaty.

The problems this created for America were aggravated by the war between France and England that was then in progress. The war produced blockades by England against France and vice versa. The result in America was economic depression that impacted chiefly on the northern states, i.e., New England, because such states were dependent on their shipping and trade for most of their economy.

At any rate, Jefferson's machinations and manipulations in this period succeeded only in making matters worse, between America, England, and France. Eventually, England and America came to blows in the War of 1812 and Resolutions of the Hartford Convention reflected the alarm in the States that resulted from that War, the responsibility for which must be placed squarely at the feet of Thomas Jefferson.

But, the aftermath of that War and Jefferson's policies, had a far greater impact long after Jefferson was dead and gone. At the time Theodore Dwight wrote his "History of the Hartford Convention," on which this series on Jefferson has been based, he could not possibly know the long-term outcome of these events and thus, his citation of secret correspondence between the Governor of Canada and his agent, Mr. John Henry, has telling significance.

It is significant because it points out that already, by 1810, there was a movement in the Northern states to separate from the Union. Thus, in one letter, Mr. Henry says:

"I have already given a decided opinion that a declaration of war is not to be expected: but, contrary to all reasonable calculation, should the Congress possess spirit and independence enough to place their popularity in jeopardy by so strong a measure, the legislature of Massachusetts will give the tone to the neighboring states; will declare itself permanent, until a new election of members; invite a Congress to be composed of delegates from the federal states, and erect a separate government for their common defence and common interest. This congress would probably begin by abrogating the offensive laws and adopting a plan for the maintenance of the power and authority thus assumed. They would by such an act be in a condition to make or receive proposals from Great Britain; and I should seize the first moment to open a correspondence with your excellency. Scarce any other aid would be necessary, and perhaps none required, than a few vessels of war, from the Halifax [Nova Scotia] station, to protect the maritime towns from the little navy which is at the disposal of the national government. What permanent connection between Great Britain and this section of the Republic could grow out of a civil commotion, such as might be expected, no person is prepared to describe; but it seems that a strict alliance must result of necessity. At present, the opposition party confine their calculations merely to resistance; and I can assure you that at this moment, they do not freely entertain the project of withdrawing the eastern states from the Union, finding it a very unpopular topic; although a course of events, such as I have already mentioned, would inevitably produce an incurable alienation of the New-England from the southern states."

In very simple terms then, by 1810, there was already a move by northern states, as a result of Jefferson's policies, to secede from the Union and the justification for it was strictly commercial interests between the New England states and England itself.

The Resolutions of the Hartford Convention were never adopted, which meant that the power of the states-- especially in the South-- was already declining. Commercial interests and those interests alone, motivated the North to force the South to secede, thereby being free to pursue its commercial interests.

It was this fact that Lincoln exploited to support abolition of the Constitution. But, with the abolition of the Constitution, the Union would break up and the South would go its own way. This Lincoln would not hear because of Federal interests in taxation on Southern exports that provided most of the Federal revenues.

Thus, when Lincoln was asked why he didn't just let the South go, he replied: "Let the South go? Let the South go! Where then shall we get our revenues?" (from "Memoirs of Service Afloat," by Raphael Semmes, The Blue and the Gray Press, 1987, page 61.)

To the original question, 'Thomas Jefferson, Friend or Foe of Christian America?'--the answer has to be a major: Foe!!!

Statism is Idolatry

A Sermon by Pastor John Weaver

And God spake all these words, saying,

I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." Exodus 20:1-3.

At II Kings 17:1-20:

"In the twelfth year of Ahaz king of Judah began Hoshea the son of Elah to reign in Samaria over Israel nine years.
And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, but not as the kings of Israel that were before him.
Against him came up Shalmaneser king of Assyria; and Hoshea became his servant, and gave him presents [tribute].
And the king of Assyria found conspiracy in Hoshea: for he had sent messengers to So king of Egypt, and brought no present to the king of Assyria, as he had done year by year: therefore the king of Assyria shut him up, and bound him in prison.
Then the king of Assyria came up throughout all the land, and went up to Samaria, and besieged it three years.
In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and placed them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.
For so it was, that the children of Israel had sinned against the LORD their God, which had brought them up out of the land of Egypt, from under the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and had feared other gods,
And walked in the statutes of the heathen, whom the LORD cast out from before the children of Israel, which they had made.
And the children of Israel did secretly those things that were not right against the LORD their God, and they built them high places in all their cities, from the tower of the watchmen to the fenced city.
And they set them up images and groves in every high hill, and under every green tree:
And there they burnt incense in all the high places, as did the heathen whom the LORD carried away before them; and wrought wicked things to provoke the LORD to anger:
For they served idols, whereof the LORD had said unto them, 'Ye shall not do this thing.'
Yet the LORD testified against Israel, and against Judah, by all the prophets, and by all the seers, saying, 'Turn ye from your evil ways, and keep My commandments and My statutes, according to the law which I commanded your fathers, which I sent to you by My servants the prophets.'
Notwithstanding they would not hear, but hardened their necks, like to the neck of their fathers, that did not believe in the LORD their God.
And they rejected His statutes, and His covenant that He made with their fathers, and His testimonies which He testified against them; and they followed vanity, and became vain, and went after the heathen that were round about them, concerning whom the LORD had charged them, that they should not do like them.
And they left all the commandments of the LORD their God, and made them molten images even two calves, and made a grove, and worshiped all the host of heaven [sun, moon, and stars], and served Baal.
And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, and used divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke Him to anger.
Therefore the LORD was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of His sight: there was none left but the tribe of Judah only.
Also Judah kept not the commandments of the LORD their God, but walked in the statutes of of Israel which they made.
And the LORD rejected all the seed of Israel, and afflicted them, and delivered them into the hand of spoilers, until He had cast them out of His sight.
For He rent Israel from the house of David; and they made Jeroboam the son of Nebat king: and Jeroboam drove Israel from following the LORD, and made them sin a great sin.
For the children of Israel walked in all the sins of Jeroboam which he did; they departed not from them;
Until the LORD removed Israel out of His sight, as He had said by all His servants the prophets. So was Israel carried away out of their own land to Assyria unto this day."

Idolatry is plainly and obviously forbidden in the Scriptures. The problem that you and I have today with idolatry is our limited concept of idolatry. If you just simply mention the word 'idolatry,' most people automatically think of individuals who bow down to idols, who bow down to graven stones and images. And certainly bowing down to graven stones and images is a part of and an aspect of idolatry, but that is certainly not the whole of idolatry. In fact, we usually forget the fact that the word 'image' comes from the word 'imagination' and before someone can ever build an image, he has to imagine that thing in his mind and then he has to build it with his hands.

So, idolatry not only covers literal things, such as idols or graven images, but it also covers concepts in our mind. In the Bible, you often find idolatry spoken of in a limited sense, but more than likely, you find it in its broad, general sense. The reason you and I like to think of idolatry in its limited sense--that is, bowing down before some graven stone or graven image--is because we do not like to think of ourselves as idolaters.

May I ask you this question. And I want you to think seriously about it. Are you an idolater?

You say, "Well, I don't bow down before graven images." That's not what I asked you.

Take the following very seriously. For, that which I have to say is extremely important in light of our day and in light of our times.

We're talking about idolatry. At Ephesians 5:5, the Apostle Paul says,

"For this you know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God."

Now, I want you to note, that Paul said, that a whoremonger; that an unclean man; that a covetous man; is an idolater. So, fornicators and adulterous individuals, are idolaters. But also, covetous individuals.

At Colossians 3:5, once again, it is spelled out very plainly. Here, the LORD says,

"Mortify therefore your members [that is, subdue them], which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry."

That means if I covet Brother Henry's wife, I am an idolater. If I covet his children, I am an idolater. If I covet his automobile, I am an idolater.

Covetousness is idolatry. In other words, idolatry is not given in the Bible just in a limited sense, the way we normally think of it; it's in a very broad sense.

Idolatry involves any and every attempt by man to be guided by his own word, rather than the Law Word of God. Anytime you replace God's Word with your word, you are an idolater. Anytime you replace God's Law with your law, you are an idolater.

If I was to turn to Genesis, chapter 3, and read there the description of 'the fall,' you would see very plainly that Adam and Eve traded God for Satan, they traded Truth for a lie, they traded Righteousness for sinfulness. And we can see very clearly that they were unfaithful to God, and unfaithful to the Charge of God, and we can charge Adam and Eve with the sin of idolatry. And that would be a correct charge.

But may I point out the fact, that modern day men and women who stubbornly and rebelliously substitute their own will for God's Will, their own words for God's Word and man's law for God's Law, are equally idolaters.

The basic question for the Christian is this. 'What is treason?' You say, ' but Pastor, you've been talking about idolatry. What in the world does treason have to do with idolatry?' A great deal. What is treason? Is treason unfaithfulness to the State. Or is treason unfaithfulness to God?

I want you to think about something with me. Whenever we use the word 'treason,' we normally think of it in terms of the State or in terms of civil government. But treason to the State, is the concept that has been used down through the ages to destroy the Godly.

Do you remember all of the Christians who were put to death in the Roman Empire? They were not put to death because they were Christians. In Rome, you could believe anything you wanted to believe, just as long as you swore by the genius of Caesar; just as long as you said, 'Caesar is Lord.' Christians were put to death not because they were Christians, but because they were called traitors and treasonous individuals, because they would not swear allegiance to the State.

All down through history, Christians have been put to death because they said, 'Jesus Christ is Lord.' For the Christian, it is idolatry, which above all else, constitutes treason to the social order. We know, and we believe, that God is True and His Word is True. Disobedience and unfaithfulness to God is idolatry; it is treason.

Did you know that the United States Constitution defines treason? In fact, Article 3, section 3, says this: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Who is the 'them and their'? The states or the people?

What if the enemy of the people and the Christian turns out to be the State; turns traitor against The Law of God--and against its own Constitution? If we as Christians obey the State, or if we obey any government--when that government is guilty of idolatry, and guilty of going contrary to the Word of God, and we obey the government that tells us to go contrary to the Word of God--we become idolaters. And we become partakers with its sin and its punishment.

There is a concept that is around in this country; it's been around down through the ages. It's the concept of Statism. Statism is the idea, that the State or the government is always right. And that the State or government can do no wrong. It was Hegel who said, " The State is God, walking on the earth."

I want you to know that that concept is idolatry, pure and simple. Because it ascribes to man--it ascribes to civil government the Perfections, the Righteousness and the Justice, that belongs to God alone. And anyone that says, "the government can do no wrong or the government is always right," is saying in essence, "government takes the place of God."

God alone, is always Right. God alone, can never do anything unjust and unkind. And so, that particular idea, is idolatry. Government can be an idol just as much as anything else.

In fact, throughout the Bible, it was usually civil government that led in idolatry. You know, that was a shock to me, when I realized that. And I want to go back and trace it down. I want to challenge you to do this. It would be interesting to study the Word of God and search the Scriptures, and find out which idolatries came into existence under which king.

Did you know that the worship of Moleck came into Israel under King Solomon and also, several other idolatries? At I Kings 11:4:

"For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.
For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.
And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father.
Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods.
And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice."

Note that the worship of Molech came in under Solomon.

Now, at I Kings 12:26, we find another civil ruler, Jeroboam, who introduces idolatry:

"And Jeroboam said in his heart, Now shall the kingdom return to the house of David:
If this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the LORD at Jerusalem, then shall the heart of this people turn again unto their lord, even unto Rehoboam king of Judah, and they shall kill me, and go again to Rehoboam king of Judah.
Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
And he set the one in Bethel, and the other put he in Dan.
And this thing became a sin: for the people went to worship before the one, even unto Dan.
And he made an house of high places, and made priests of the lowest of the people, which were not of the sons of Levi.
And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah, and he offered upon the alter. So did he in Bethel, sacrificing unto the calves that he had made: and he placed in Bethel the priests of the high places which he had made.
So he offered upon the alter which he had made in Bethel the fifteenth day of the eighth month, even in the month which he had devised of his own heart; and ordained a feast unto the children of Israel: and he offered upon the alter, and burnt incense."

And again, we find civil government's introduction of idolatry at II Kings 21:1:

"Manasseh was twelve years old when he began to reign, and reigned fifty and five years in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Hephzibah.
And he did that which is evil in the sight of the LORD, after the abomination of the heathen, whom the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.
For he built up again the high places which Hezekiah his father had destroyed; and he reared up alters for Baal, and made a grove, as did Ahab king of Israel; and worshiped all the host of heaven, and served them."

Now, every verse so far, points out that it was the civil leaders who were introducing idolatry into the land.

Why are governments prone to introducing idolatry into the land? Several reasons:

Firstly, because government deals with law. Law is inherently religious. All law is religious. Behind every law, is a moral judgment. Behind every law is a value judgment. And your values and your morals are based upon your theology. It is based upon your religion.

Law may be Christian or it may be pagan, but it is still religious. The reason we have the laws in our country, that we have today, are because of the false religions that our leaders have; and that we the people, who elect them, have.

And by the way, how many lawgivers are there? Only One. There is one God; there is one King; there is one Lawgiver.

In reality, governments do not have to make laws; they just need to enforce God's Law, because His Law in sufficient.

But whenever you begin to make laws, you're going to make a law which is in line with your theology and in line with your religious motivation, whether it's pagan or Christian. The first reason governments are prone to idolatry is because they deal with law. And instead of enforcing God's Law, they make their own law.

Secondly, because it's the nature of government to perpetuate itself. Just as Jeroboam introduced idolatry to Israel, because he was afraid they were going to go back to Rehoboam. So Jeroboam said, 'it is too much for you to go down to Judah to worship, where the tabernacle is, where the true alter is, so I'm going to make some golden calves and I'm going to ordain a feast the way they had it, and I'm going to make some priests--their not Levites--but I'm going to make some priests and we're going to have our own religion.' You see, Jeroboam introduced idolatry into the land to perpetuate his own office; to keep his position. Have you ever known of a politician who did not want to be re-elected? Have you ever known of a political party that did not want to stay in power? And, have you ever known of either one of them who were not willing to do any thing to keep themselves in power?

John 11:47 proves exactly what I am saying:

"Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation."

They were in power, and they wanted to stay in power. And they were willing to crucify the Son of God to stay in power.

Now, the reason governments have the propensity to idolatry, is not only because it deals with the law, and it's the nature of government to perpetuate itself, but also:

Thirdly, because government is power. Government is authority. And corrupt, depraved men, instead of exercising dominion over God's Creation, and trying to have dominion over that, want to exercise dominion over men.

What did Satan have to say to Adam and Eve?: 'you shall be as God.' Who has control over men? God does. Well, if we are our own gods or if we think we're some type of god, then we're going to have to exercise some control over men in order to prove it. So governments, then, are prone to idolatry. It's interesting that it was Solomon that introduced Moleck worship. He also built an alter for Astarte worship. It's interesting that he did that as well. Astarte was the goddess of sex, or love; a lot of prostitution was involved in the worship of Astarte.

Now, Molech worship is a power religion. It is a political religion. There was no king in Israel that had the power that Solomon had. Solomon knew power. In fact, Solomon ruled from the river Euphrates, all the way to the sea. He ruled the whole of The Promised Land which God had given. No other king had done that before or after. So Solomon knew what power was.

You see, Molech worship is the worship of the State. The word 'Molech' means, 'king or kingship.' Molech worship is the concept of divine kingship. We know it in our time as, 'the divine right of kings.' And, do you know that that concept went out the window just a few hundred years ago? Do you realize that Europe still had kings that ruled as God? Their word was absolute law. The king could do no wrong. They ruled in the place of God. Molech worship was a power manifested in the political order. It was a political religion. And the king became identified with God to the degree that manifested absolute power. Thus, the Molech state, as the Molech king, claimed total jurisdiction over man. That's where we get the term, 'Statism.' That's where we get the term, 'totalitarianism.' It's a claim of total and absolute jurisdiction.

The Molech state-- the false pagan idolatrous governments of our day--claim unlimited jurisdiction. They claim unlimited control over man and the world. The Molech state claims jurisdiction from the cradle to the grave. Or as one man says, 'from the womb to the tomb.' Over welfare, education, worship, family, business, farming--you name it, they claim control of it. And if you don't believe that is true in our land today, try to enter into any of that without a license or certificate and you'll find out. The government claims absolute jurisdiction and control.

This past year, a Pastor friend of mine, W. N. Otwell--in Dallas, Texas--he and his church were concerned about the street people. There were a lot of people in Dallas who were going into the garbage cans and getting the food out and eating it. Now, I don't know about you, but I've always viewed that as being rather unhealthy, as well as unappetizing. Well, they got convicted about all of these people, so his church got together, and every Sunday they would bring sandwiches and other foods like that, and they would bring enough for themselves and enough for 2 or 3 others. And after church, they would go out and find these street people who were eating out of the garbage cans and share their lunches with them, and witness to them while they were doing so. And it got to the point where they were feeding hundreds of people each Sunday. And do you know, that the city came to them and told them that they could not do that without a license? Their food had not been inspected. Their food was not approved. They did not have a Health Certificate.

Pastor Otwell said to them, "you mean to tell me that I can't make a sandwich in my home and bring it down here and share it with a man, without having a license or certificate?" They said, "that's exactly right." He said, "let me ask you a question. What if I take all of these sandwiches and just throw them in the garbage can? I make them at home, I throw them in the garbage can and turn around and walk off. And these folks come out and dig it out of the garbage can and eat it. Do I have to have a license for that?" "No, you don't have to have a license for that." So, the next Sunday, he had several garbage cans on the sidewalk full of junk which said 'city food' and then over here he had 'church food.'

That's the Molech state.

Read Romans 13. Did you know that the State or government is not only called power and ordinance in Romans 13? There are two words that are very, very pointed. Twice, the government is called, 'the minister of God.' The word 'minister,' twice, is 'deaconos.' That's where we get our English word, 'deacon.' Government is to be the 'deacon of God.' Secondly, the word 'liturgos' is used, when it's called 'minister.' That's where we get our English word, 'liturgy.' A public worship. Government is to be God's liturgy, it is to be God's public worship. It is to serve God. It is to carry out God's commands. Government was given to us, according to Romans 13, for our protection, for our promotion. Not for a welfare state. The Word of God does not give the State the power or the authority to go beyond The Word of God.

Now, listen to me. To ascribe power, authority, reverence, submission, or anything else to the State--above The Word of God--is idolatry.

The State does not have 'infinite wisdom.' Only God has Infinite Wisdom. It is idolatry to talk about our government and our lawmakers as having infinite wisdom. You see, we are not to fear other gods. We are to fear The One True and The Living God, who is The LORD Jesus Christ. The reason why God punished and chastised Israel is found at II Kings 17:7; because they feared other gods.

Question. What does it mean 'to fear the LORD'? What does it mean 'to fear other gods'? When I talk about the fear of the LORD; and when the Bible says that 'the fear of the LORD is the beginning of all wisdom,' what does it mean? Well, when God talks about the fear of the LORD, He is not talking about a servile fear. He's not talking about a fear of punishment, a fear of wrath or a fear of hell. He's talking about a 'filial fear'; that is, a fatherly fear. A fear that is based upon the knowledge of God as Father. A reverencial affection for God which results in loving submission and loving obedience to Him and His Word. Note what God says at Job 28:28:

"Behold, the fear of the LORD, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding."

Now, wisdom is the fear of the LORD and to depart from evil is understanding. There is the positive and the negative. And at Proverbs 1:7:

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction."

And at Proverbs 1:29:

"For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD." If you don't fear God, you hate the knowledge of Him.
Verse 30:
"They would have none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof."

The fear of the LORD, negatively speaking is, 'to depart from that which is wicked and sinful and contrary to God.' The fear of the LORD, positively speaking is, 'to obey God and His Law and His Statutes and to do that which is well pleasing in His sight.'

Let me put it to you in black and white. When you fear God, you keep His Word. You obey His Commandments.

When you fear a false god, you keep his law and his commandments. How do we know if a man fears a false god? He walks in the commandments and the statutes of the false god.

Now, what did the children of Israel do, to sin against God? One, they walked in idolatrous statutes and laws of the heathen god. Two, they walked in and kept the idolatrous laws of their kings, which they had made. In other words, they obeyed civil government when that government was against God and contrary to God.

The main question for Christians today is, 'what is treason'? Is treason against God or is treason against the State? For the Christian, it has to be against God. We have forgotten that idolatry and sin can come under the 'color of law.' Idolatry and sin can come under that which is 'right and just,' in the sense that it comes from civil government. At Psalm 94:20:

"Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with Thee, which frameth mischief by a law?"

A 'throne' speaks of rulership, power and authority. 'Mischief' means sin and transgression. 'The throne of iniquity' is that which makes sin legal by passing a law. God asks this question, "shall that wicked civil power which violates My Law and My Word have fellowship Me?" The answer is obviously, "no."

Beloved, I submit to you that it is idolatry to place any power; any authority; any statutes;-- above the Word of God. God only, is God. He alone is to be worshiped and feared.

I challenge you to read II Kings 22 and 23. The main chapter is 23, because Josiah becomes king, a Godly civil ruler, and starts cleaning house. One Godly ruler stands for God and casts out all of the previous idolatry.

The current government will pass one little law, and we say, 'that doesn't bother us,' until all of a sudden there's a strangle hold. Pastor Craig of Kentucky is in jail right now, charged with the 'crime' of 'preaching without a license.'

You see, we need to be perceptive enough to know that God's Truth is Supreme and that God alone is Sovereign. And we must obey God, rather than man. And when someone causes us to vacillate or when we are threatened with punishment and fines and this and that, the only question we must ask ourselves is this; What does God's Word say? And then we must obey God and take whatever man dishes out.

Our LORD said this,

"fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10:28.

Our fear is to be of God alone.

Pastor Weavers sermon tapes are available at the following location: Dominion Tape Library, P. O. Box 684, Hephzibah, Georgia [30815]

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

Two Strings to Our Bow

"Well, Hodge," said a smart looking Londoner to a plain cottager, who was on his way home from church, "so you are trudging home, after taking the benefit of the fine balmy breezes in the country this morning."

"Sir," said the man, "I have not been strolling about this sacred morning, wasting my time in idleness and neglect of religion; but I have been at the house of God, to worship Him, and to hear His preached Word."

"Ah, what then, you are one of those simpletons, that, in these country places, are weak enough to believe the Bible? Believe me, my man, that book is a pack of nonsense, and none but weak and ignorant people now think it true."

"Well, Mr. Stranger, but do you know, weak and ignorant people as we are, we like to have two strings to our bow."

"Two strings to our bow! What do you mean by that?"

"Why, sir, I mean to believe the Bible, and act up to it, is like having two strings to one's bow; for if it is not true, as you claim, I shall be the better man for living according to it; and so it will be for my good in this life--that is one string; and if it should be true, as I know it is, it will be better for me in the next life--that is another string! and a pretty strong one it is. But, sir, if you disbelieve the Bible, and on that account do not live as it requires, you have not one string to your bow. And oh! if its tremendous threats prove true, oh, think! what then, sir, will become of you?"

This plain apeal silenced the coxcomb, and made him feel, it is hoped, that he was not quite so wise as he had supposed.

Thomas Paine

An elder of a Presbyterian church in the city of New York, visited Paine a few days before his death. He was then a loathsome and pitiable object. His face, and particularly his nose, was greatly swollen and changed, by liquor, unto a dark color. The visitor said to him--"Mr. Paine, he that believeth on the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." "What is that you say?" said the dying man. The visitor repeated the gospel declaration. Paine immediately seized a large black stick, that was lying at his side, nearly the thickness of a man,s wrist, and raised it over the head of the visitor, said, with great anger and vehemence, "Away with your popish nonsense." The very name of Jesus Christ convulsed him with anger. The woman attending him, informed the visitor that he was occasionally visited by persons of like principles and habits with himself, and that his orders were to keep out of his room all who professed any respect for religion. She said that he was a wretched man. Thhat when alone, he kept groaning day and night, as if in great distress of mind. She once told him, that his groans so disturbed her, that she could not rest; when he replied,--"I have no rest myself, nor shall you have."

Thus Paine died an object of the most inconceivable filthiness and wretchedness. His expressions thus authenticated, and here recorded, breathe the spirit of pure infidelity. They are worthy the degraded being that uttered them. He, then, esteemed the gospel "popish nonsense;" but does he thus esteem it now? He may have had an enviable fame. But he warred against the Bible and its God, and has fallen in the unequal contest. His memory now must rot. A thick cload of shame is gathering around it, which can never be dissipated. He is now thought of with horror by all the good; and he will soon be thus esteemed by all the world.

Issue the Fourteenth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Exercising Your Christian Liberty on the Common Ways...

Admissions and Confessions, Part Two...

Let This Mind Be In You, Part Three...

The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men, Part One...

That Knock on the Door...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Exercising Your Christian Liberty on The Common Ways

"Let us all stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free; and not suffer ourselves to be entangled with any yoke of bondage. If we have submitted to the yoke hitherto, and ingloriously subjected ourselves to any human impositions in religious matters; it is better to throw off the yoke even now, than to let it gall us all our life-time; It is not yet too late to assert our liberty, and free ourselves from an ignominious slavery to the dictates of men." Jonathan Mayhew in The Huntington Sermons, March, 1750, pp. 85-88.

A difficult question for all Christians is:

"Should I take a license from government or not?"

For those discerning Christians who have carefully read the article by Greg Loren in Issue the Thirteenth, 'A Christian Stand Against Licensure,' the only answer is, Not.

The next question automatically follows:

"What do I do when I get stopped for not having a current registration and drivers license?"

As always, the answer is found in Scripture:

"I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." Phillipians 4:13.

Matthew Henry said of this verse:

'The word in the original is a participle of the present tense, and denotes a present and continued act; as if he had said, "Through Christ, who is strengthening me; it is by His constant and renewed strength I am enabled to act in every thing; I wholly depend upon Him for all my spiritual power." It did not come from covetousness, or an affection to worldly wealth.'

Therefore, when you are out on the militarily controlled roads, you can not be doing anything that is contrary to Scripture, in order to exercise your Christian Liberty on the Common Ways. This would include, but is not limited to: speeding, reckless behaviour with a six thousand pound machine, "four-wheeling" on sidewalks, engaging in commercial activity for personal financial gain and profit, and other such acts of 'disturbing the public peace.'

If you choose to engage in such activity, you will be fully controlled and regulated by those that exercise that job, for you will be looked at by them as a 'low and lawless form of humanity.'

But on the other hand, if you act in the mode and character of a Good and Lawful Christian Man or Woman, there are alternatives to State licensure. These alternatives have always been available to those who are willing to take the time to study and understand the differences between the jurisdictions of the ungodly martial rule 'powers,' and that of Christendom and the coverture of God.

In this, there are no gray areas. It's either, 'Rendering unto Caesar,' or -- 'Jesus, take all of me,' and 'Rendering unto God.'

There are no guarantees or silver bullets available when dealing with the arbitrary and capricious character of the current imperial powers. But there is the Promise of Christ, The Higher Power:

"The things which are impossible with men are possible with God." Luke 18:27 --

The Shield of Faith must be carried at all times.

The first thing to understand is that all codes, rules and regulations that 'govern' the areas of transportation and the other 'dominions' of the current government, apply only to natural persons, corporations and other godless entities of like kind. They do not apply to Christians (see 'To Be or Not To Be: A Human Being,' in Issue the Sixth, page two). When you carry a license, you are looked upon by these 'powers' as one of theirs. It is evidence of your status--as a natural person and human being, and not of a Christian.

Therefore, one of the evidences of who and what you are, and for all Christians, is your Family Bible and Baptismal Certificate. Don't leave home without them. These contain the substantive Law for the Right to exercise your Christian Liberty on the Common Ways under God. However, the primary evidence of who and what you are, is found in how you conduct yourself when confronted by the 'road patrol.'

The following is an example of what might happen when stopped:

The patrolman turns on the red lights and the driver pulls over. He comes to the car window and asks to see a drivers license and registration.
Driver: "I have something better than that. (He hands the patrolman his Bible). This is the Law I follow and in my Law, it says that I can do all things in Christ which strengthens me, and I'm not out here hurting anyone.
Patrolman: Well, that's fine and dandy, but when you're driving a vehicle on the public roads, you have to have a drivers license issued by the State.
Driver: Yes, I understand that, but I have a Higher Law that I have to answer to. If I were to take a license, I would be forsaking that Law, and God.
Patrolman: Do you have any I.D.
Driver: This is my Baptismal Certificate. This is who and what I am.
Patrolman: O.K., please step out the car and go back there with my partner.
(Note: Never refuse to exit the car. Be cooperative as possible and show no resistance. Simply stand on God's Law and don't move from it. Buckle on the Shield of Faith. Allow the patrolman to search your car, etc. Under current Supreme Court decisions, they have the power to order you out of the car and search it. Any resistance to this will only inflame the situation. As a Christian, you have nothing to fear or hide).
Patrolman: Do you own this car.
Driver: No, not really. I gave a friend a couple of hundred bucks for it about a year ago, but I don't really own it. Every thing belongs to God. I'm simply using it to exercise my Christian Liberty on this Common Way.
Patrolman: Where are you going right now.
Driver: Where ever God leads me.
Patrolman: Where do you live.
Driver: I live where ever I happen to be at the time. (At this point, he is trying to determine whether you are a 'resident' or not).
Patrolman: Well, where do you receive your mail.
Driver: At General Delivery at the Post Office in ......................
Patrolman: Oh, O.K. Well, you have to understand that I have a job to do out here, and when I see a violation taking place, I have to act on it.
Driver: Yes, I understand that. And, I don't have a problem with that. But, as I said before, I have a Higher Law that I have to answer to and that's all that matters to me. I realize that you can take the car and arrest me. But, I can only tell you what my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has told me, and that is, "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both body and soul in hell." That is what I answer to.

It's not necessary for me to say any more on this conversation. At this point, the patrolman will make his decision on what he will do with the situation.

Note: If he decides to write you a ticket, never refuse to sign it. If you do refuse, it's a guarantee that they will take you to jail.

The dialog above comes from personal experience. It occurred about one year ago on a Los Angeles county freeway. The words that came out of my mouth had not been previously articulated by me. I believe to this day that it was through the Holy Spirit that they were presented.

The patrolman and his partner allowed me to continue on, did not take the car and did not ticket me. They never checked the registration on the car or ran a check on my name, even though they had the opportunity to do so. They never said they were Christians, but they did say that they had the ability to use their discretion, and that they felt that I was sincere in my convictions and had to respect those convictions. In other words, they didn't feel I was a threat to the peace and safety of the public.

It was a positive experience for me. I felt that I had truly been Blessed by God. It obviously could have been negative for me also. They could have arrested me, taken the car, etc.

It can be positive or negative for anyone that decides to take the same stand. The important thing to remember is that it will be positive in God's eyes. "Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for He hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee." Hebrews 13:5

Your stop situation will probably be different and the questions and answers somewhat different. Therefore:

"When they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say: For the Holy Spirit shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say." Luke 12:11-12

Since this is the only time I've been stopped in the past four years, I have truly been Blessed by God. During that time, and in the situation above, I had a facsimile Louisiana plate on the car similar to the one displayed below. It is sold in Bible book stores in Louisiana, and many Christians in Louisiana put these on the front of their cars. The car I was driving was not registered. I was driving safely when I was stopped. The reason they stopped me was because one of the cops was from Louisiana and recognized the plate.

More detailed information on plates will be in the new 3rd Edition of 'The Book of the Hundreds,' available in late April.

Written and compiled by John Joseph

Part Two:

From Elector to Franchised Voter

In this Issue, we will examine certain areas of Lincoln's world he created in his own image and likeness. Many of you who are Patrons of The News, or have attended a Christian Liberty Seminar or called us on the phone, are well aware of our stand against Abraham Lincoln and Francis Lieber and the Roman commercial world they created within the states, primarily under the Reconstruction Acts and various other pieces of "legislation," which were results of their earlier actions.

Most of you know that courts do not decide political questions, but look to the acts of the political departments of government for the controlling law. Therefore, we look at court decisions quite heavily, because they are confirmation of the executive or legislative acts in regard to these particular questions.

"It certainly is nowhere made so in express terms. The United States has no voters in the States of its own creation. The elective officers of the United States are all elected directly or indirectly by State voters. The members of the House of Representatives are to be chosen by the people of [*171] the States, and the electors in each State must have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature [Const. Art. I, sec. 2]. Senators are to be chosen by the legislatures of the States, and necessarily the members of the legislature required to make the choice are elected by the voters of the State [ib. Article I, sec. 3]. Each State must appoint in such manner, as the legislature thereof may direct, the electors to elect the President and Vice-President [ib. Article II, sec. 2]. The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives are to be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the place of choosing Senators [ib. Article I, sec. 4]. It is not necessary to inquire whether this power of supervision thus given to Congress is sufficient to authorize any interference with the State laws prescribing the qualifications of voters, for no such interference has ever been attempted. The power of the State in this particular is certainly supreme until Congress acts." Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 170-171.

In other words, the "United States" originally had no Electors in any of the states separate and distinct from the Christian people in the states. The United States, then, was totally dependent on the decisions of the consociated Christian states for its continued longevity. That this is true is seen in Story's Commentaries and in Judge Sprague's instructions to the Grand Jury in 1863:

"In the next place, the state governments are, by the very theory of the constitution, essential constituent parts of the general government. They can exist without the latter, but the latter cannot exist without the former. Without the intervention of the state legislatures, the president of the United States cannot be elected at all; and the senate is exclusively and absolutely under the choice of the state legislatures. The representatives are chosen by the people of the states. Every where the state sovereignties are represented; and the national sovereignty, as such, has no representation. How is it possible, under such circumstances, that the national government can be dangerous to the liberties of the people, unless the states, and the people of the states, conspire together for their overthrow? If there should be such a conspiracy, is not this more justly deemed an act of the states through their own agents, and by their own choice, rather than a corrupt usurpation by the general government?" Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833), 510, Vol. 1, p. 488. [Emphasis added.]
"It has been found even more potent in its practical operation than they had contemplated. They [the Good and Lawful Christian people in their states] secured to members [of the House] perfect freedom of debate, and certain means of information, that they might be able to form a correct judgment, and gave to them personal immunities and a certain tenure of office, that they might independently and conscientiously follow the dictates of their own informed understandings. But, in practice, almost every representative holds his own judgment in entire subjection to the will of his constituents. No matter how cogent the facts, or unanswerable the reasoning for or against any measure, he deems it a sufficient answer to say, 'My constituents think otherwise.' He takes an official oath and those who have taken no oath control his action. He hears the discussion, receives information and light from all parts of the country upon great measures affecting the whole nation; and others, at their distant homes, who have not heard the discussion, nor received that information, nor obtained that light, decide the question. Thus, instead of acting as a member of a deliberative assembly, he becomes in effect an ambassador, or diplomatic agent, with instructions in his pocket, and is constantly watching for indications of the will of a distant [sovereign Power in his constituents], to which he yields implicit obedience [allegiance].
"The members of the Senate have the same antecedents and predilections, and are equally devoted to state interests and submissive to state will. They are elected by the legislatures of the several states; and those bodies claim the right to give instructions to senators which shall be absolutely binding upon them. In nearly all the states, this asserted right has been freely exercised, and rarely indeed has a senator hesitated to render the most implicit obedience [allegiance].
"Indeed our whole system rests upon the states." Charge to the Grand Jury (1863), Fed.Cas.No. 18,274, 30 Fed.Cas. 1042, 1045, 2 Spr. 292. [Emphasis and insertion added.]

This was the situation before Lincoln's War v. All Christian States. What happened during or after that War?

"Moreover, Article I, section 2, is a clear indication that the Framers intended the States to determine the qualifications of their own voters for state offices, because those qualifications were adopted for federal offices unless Congress directs otherwise under Article I, section 4. It is a plain fact of history that the framers never imagined that the national Congress would set the qualifications for voters in every election from President to local constable or village alderman. It is obvious that the whole Constitution reserves to the States the power to set voter qualifications in state and local elections, except to the limited extent that the people through constitutional amendments have specifically narrowed the powers of the States. Amendments Fourteen, Fifteen, Nineteen, and Twenty-four, each of which has assumed that the States had general supervisory power over state elections, are examples of express limitations on the power of the States to govern themselves.
"Of course, the original design of the Founding Fathers was altered by the Civil War Amendments and various other amendments to the Constitution. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments have expressly authorized Congress to 'enforce' the limited prohibitions of those amendments by 'appropriate legislation.'
"Above all else, the framers of the Civil War Amendments intended to deny to the States the power to discriminate against persons on account of their race. Loving v. Virginia (1967), 388 U.S. 1, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010, 87 S.Ct. 1817; Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960), 364 U.S. 339, 5 L.Ed.2d 110, 81 S.Ct. 125; Brown v. Board of Education (1954), 347 U.S. 483, 98 L.Ed. 873, 74 S.Ct. 686, 38 ALR2d 1180; Slaughter House Cases (1873), 16 Wall. 36, 71-72, 21 L.Ed. 394, 407." Oregon v. Mitchell (1970), 400 U.S. 112, 125-126, 27 L.Ed.2d 272, 282, 91 S.Ct. 260. [Emphasis added.]

This is a repetition of what the United States Supreme Court said in Ex parte Yarbrough (1884), 110 U.S. 651, 4 S.Ct. 152, 28 L.Ed. 274.

How's that for an admission or confession? The elections process has been changed, because it was, and still is, the will of the bondholders holding all of those 10-40 and 5-20 bonds from Lincoln's War vs. All Christian States. The bondholders now dictated the policy which ensures their getting a return from their investment in the blood shed during Lincoln's War, i.e., "...the borrower is servant to the lender."

"Drivers," "brokers," "residents," "consumers" "taxpayers," "homeowners," "employees," "persons," or other commercial franchisees licensed by or under the rules of war, now had the power to elect "persons" in return for allegiance to, and payment of, the public debt owed to the financiers of Lincoln's War, which according to the fourth section of the purported Fourteenth Amendment cannot be questioned by them, because they are the surety or guarantors of the debt payments to the collection agency under the guidance of the Federal Reserve Accounting House. And, for those of you who take benefit of any war measure under Lincoln, see Ashwander v. T.V.A. (1936), 297 U.S. 288, 346, 56 S.Ct. 466 482, 80 L.Ed. 688.

Thus, the "United States" was lifted from its Christian foundations to become independent of the states, and control was lost to a secular government, which has no Christian roots, attempting to stay engaged in commercial enterprise to pay off these filthy phony war bonds. See Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), 367 U.S. 483. Does anyone wonder why it doesn't matter who you elect to office? The script doesn't change because the debt is larger--just the actors change. The secular form of worship, not a Christian form of worship, is what was implemented by the Lawless firm of A. Lincoln, F. Lieber, U.S. Grant, and W. T. Sherman.

By the way, Lincoln's income tax in 1863, the first ever in the history of the United States, was not used to fund the war; but to begin making payments on the debt during a time of confusion, when no one, "in their right mind" would want to appear "unpatriotic" by not paying their "fair share" to Lincoln's cause of "maintaining the Union." [This ruse of war was also used by F.D.R. during WWII]. The trouble is, no one at that time realized the war was to Reconstruct the Union, from a voluntary consociation of Christian states under God, to a federal corporation of franchisees under the President, based on debt imposed to perform this conversion through perversion.

The following are excerpts from the U.S. Attorney-General opinion at 12 Op. Atty-Gen. 182 (1867), which makes full disclosure of the new methods, created by The Reconstruction Acts, of choosing state officers in the states; which by the way, also means that the method of choosing federal officers was also changed:

"This existing government [under presidential reconstruction by Andrew Johnson] is not set aside; it is recognized more than once by the act. It is not in any one of its departments, or as to any one of its functions, repealed or modified by this act, save only in the qualifications of voters, the qualifications of persons eligible to office, and the constitution of the State. The act does not in any other respect change the provisional government, nor does the act authorize the military authority to change it.
* * *
"Congress was not satisfied with the organic law or constitution under which this civil government was established. That constitution was to be changed in only one particular to make it acceptable to Congress, and that was in the matter of the elective franchise. The purpose, the sole object of this [the 2nd Reconstruction] act, is to effect that change, and to effect it by the agency of the people of the State, or such of them as are made voters by means of elections provided for in the act, and in the meantime to preserve order and to [*186] punish offenders, if found necessary, by military commissions.
* * *
"We see, first of all, that each of these States is "made subject to the military authority of the United States"--not to the military authority altogether, but with this express limitation--'as hereinafter prescribed.'
* * *
"There can be no doubt as to the rule of construction according to which we must interpret this grant of power. It is a grant of power to military authority, over civil rights and citizens, in time of peace. It is a new jurisdiction, never granted before, by which, in certain particulars and for certain purposes, the established principle that the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority is reversed." 12 Op. Atty.-Gen. 182 (1867), 185-186. [Emphasis added.]

Now most of you will think that this applied only to the Southern states. Not true. This is seen in the fact that during 1862, West Virginia was, by presidential proclamation, carved out of the Southern state of Virginia and admitted as a State of the Union aligned constitutionally with Lincoln--their constitution being dictated to them. And during 1863, Lincoln ordered the military governor of Louisiana to call a constitutional convention to frame a new constitution embodying his infidel philosophy of fatalism, rationalism, and tribute to the Roman gods. What was wrong with their existing constitution? Nothing, as far as the Good and Lawful Christian people in that state were concerned.

All of the Northern States, in due course of time, changed their constitutions to fit better in Lincoln's World of heavy commerce under licensure by the laws of war, and no Biblical Christianity under the Law of Peace. Generally speaking, the phraseology in these constitutions is that of the oath of allegiance for granting amnesty. If you search your State's current constitution, you will find something similar to this: "The State of ... is an inseparable part of the United States, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land." In the antebellum state constitutions this phrase never appeared, because Scripture, God's Word, is and was the supreme law of the land, under a Godly government. This has to be because it is God's Word that brought the land into being when He spoke it in the account of Creation, beginning in Genesis 1:1. It is elementary that the Law of the Sovereign governs that which He creates. The creature has no standing to challenge the Creator. If this be not so, then there is no sovereign anywhere, including the secular humanist sitting in the throne of infamy.

To further implement these secular, mundane and irreligious changes, both north and south, the Voting Rights Acts, as amended, were passed. These operate in all States, not just southern States.

If the Union were intact, then there was no need for Reconstruction. How do you reconstruct something that never was damaged or destroyed? If Lincoln's War was fought strictly for vindicating the rights of the federal government, then reconstruction was not necessary. Vindicating the rights of a fiction is not tolerated in Christian states, for God's Law has no place for fictions. The States would have been left intact, and depending on their favor, the federal government would continue to exist as it did before--dependent on that favor. But as one writer put it, "Never till the days of reconstruction was it suspected that our system recognized any power outside the people of a state, the authority to organize a government for the state. That the judiciary established a view so entirely repugnant to all established precedent, is significant of the embarrassments with which eras of political violence must always surround the department closely bound to the past." Dunning, The Constitution of the United States in Civil War and Reconstruction 120, (1885).

What Reconstruction did was establish a de facto imperial regime in America. Such is admitted by the courts:

"We do not question the doctrines of public law which have been invoked, nor their application in proper cases; but it will be found, upon examination, that there is an essential difference between the governments of the Confederate States and those de facto governments. The latter are of two kinds. One of them is such as exists after it has expelled the regular government from the seats of power and the public offices, and established its own functionaries in their places, so as to represent in fact the sovereignty of the nation....As far as other nations are concerned, such a government is treated as in most respects possessing rightful authority; its contracts and treaties are usually enforced; its acquisitions are retained; its legislation is in general recognized; and the rights acquired under it are, with few exceptions, respected after the restoration of the authorities which were expelled." Williams v. Bruffy (1877), 96 U.S. 176.

Now we need to ask the question:

"Can the Ethiopan change his skin, or the leopard his spots?" Jer.13:23.

What has been shown so far is the de facto nature of the present government as it exists now. The powers which it exercises concern:

"Therefore, in the choice of means for obtaining an end, however good, congress cannot authorize the trial of any person, not impressed with a military character, for any infamous crime whatever, except by means of a grand jury first accusing, and a trial jury afterwards deciding the accusation. This prohibition is fatal to the military government of civilians, wherever, whenever, and under whatever circumstances attempted. Such a government cannot exist without military courts, military arrests, and military trials." David Dudley Field, argument for Lambdin P. Milligan, in the case of Ex parte Milligan (1866).

Therefore, only those who have any military connection, i.e., take any benefit from any act during Lincoln's War or the fruits of it, have that "military character" impressed upon them which Judge Field argues gives the de facto government jurisdiction. Incidentally, those who sit in this de facto government have that same "military character" impressed upon them. This becomes all the more important when you read Christ's reply to the Pharisees:

"Render to Caesar the things which are Caesar's [the military character created in the image and likeness of Caesar]; and to God the things of God."

If all of this has not convinced you that today's world is no longer based on Christianity, Roscoe Pound, made this observation in his excellent work, The Spirit of the Common Law (1921):

"But there are two growing periods of our [Christian] common law system; two periods in which rules and doctrines were formative, in which our authorities summed up the past for us and gave us principles for the future. These periods are (1) the classical common-law period, the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century, and (2) the period that some day, when the history of the common law as a law of the world comes to be written, will be regarded as no less classical than the first--the period of legal development in the United States that came to an end with the Civil War." at page 41.

Many so-called "patriot" groups scream they want the "rights of our forefathers" and deny the sole Source of those Rights--Almighty God through Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and the Law which secures them. If Christ is denied then they are denied by Him to the Father. Hence, they have no Rights common in all Good and Lawful Christians, and for this reason have no standing in Law, because it is a venue separate and distinct from equity:

"Every system of law known to civilized society generated from or had as its component one of three well known systems of ethics, Pagan, stoic, or Christian. The common law draws its subsistence from the latter, its roots go deep into that system, the Christian concept of right and wrong or right and justice motivates every rule of equity. It is the guide by which we dissolve domestic frictions and the rule by which all legal controversies are settled." Strauss v. Strauss (1941), 3 So.2d 727, 728. [Emphasis added.]
"The Christian religion is the established religion by our form of government and all denominations [not human relations] are placed on an equal footing and equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty." Runkel v. Winemiller et al (1799), 4 H.&McH. [Insertion added.]

Just as the so-called "voting rights" of "persons" have a different source than Almighty God, they must also have a different form of government, which declares a different form of worship.

By God's Law, a Republican form of government (res communis) is espoused--note Acts 2:44 & 4:32. By man's law, a democracy is espoused, because it gives the greatest confusion to the masses and allows the wielders of power the greatest freedom from restraint by the masses. And the form of law used to perform all this deception is Roman Imperial law.

With all this evidence on record, it is very clear that 'christian Amerika' today does not remotely resemble the Christian America of the Puritans.

To participate in "voting" any longer is evidence of who you are owned by, and the god you worship:

"Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law [applicable to "persons"], but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" Brother Paul to our Brothers at Rome, chapter six verses thirteen through sixteen.

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly on you, and may [your] posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Sam Adams. [Insertion added.]

(More Admissions and Confessions next month.)

Let This Mind Be In You

The Characteristics and Attributes of the State

All states, Christian or Humanist, share certain characteristics that seem to be a necessary part of the state's existence. This series has focused on the application of presuppositional analysis and its use, and now, we will narrow Our focus to examine only the state, its characteristics and attributes. These will then be included in an expansion of Chart 'B' from the previous Issue, and published next month. Our object is to show that the presupposition behind the definition of the state determines all of its characteristics and attributes and also determines the consequence of the states policy in history.

What is most compelling about this study is, that if one consistently maintains the implementation of a given presupposition, then the laws that accompany the presupposition are determinative in the sense that one cannot implement a Humanist presupposition in the state and end up with a Christian consequence. Humanistic consequences follow Humanistic presuppositions and the same is true for Christianity.

A characteristic phenomena that accompanies the Humanist view of history is that all Christian presuppositions involved in the definition and implementation of Christian states, are ipso facto wrong. That is, from the Humanist perspective, the Christian state is an absurdity, is always repressive, a threat to freedom or liberty, and a whole host of other attributes which we will not catalogue here.

The truth of the matter, as true history shows, is exactly the opposite. But, in Humanism, it is not enough to merely say that a Christian state is all bad; the whole of history must be re-interpreted to make history appear to support the Humanist idea of the Christian state. Even the meaning of the words used to define the Christian state must be re-defined by the Humanist so that the words themselves do not say what they obviously appear to say.

In this study, as we have seen that the terms, words and phrases used by the Humanist to describe the terrors of a Christian state, actually apply to the Humanist state, in fact. This is because when the Humanist interprets reality about him, he has only his own categories of thought to use as a reference for meaning, whereas the Christian has the Scripture. The process of the re-definition of reality in terms of autonomous reason in Humanism, thus, cannot see the truth, even when it is right in front of his eyes.

At any rate, the characteristics that seem to be shared by all states are as follows:

One. States are designed to control the flow of force and power to a particular object. From this we get the idea of government, or governing. It is like a governor on a large truck which controls the application of power to the truck's wheels to control the truck speed on the highways.

And, like the truck, we must first know where we want to go before we apply the power to the governor. That is, for what object does the state exist? This is where the definition of the nature and purpose of civil government becomes important.

In Christian states, the purpose of civil government is clearly defined. That is, to protect life, liberty, and property; not to provide or take life, liberty, or property, without the Due Course of Law. This definition is the same as that adopted by the founding fathers when building this nation and writing the Constitution. The only point of disagreement between them was, how to achieve this end, or object.

The only point of clarity that we could add to this definition would be to include some statement respecting the authority of Scripture and Christian Common Law.

Thus, we could define the nature and purpose of civil government as: The protection of the life, liberty, land, and property; not to provide or take life, liberty, land, or property, without the Due Course of Law in accordance with Scripture and the Customs and Usages of the Christian people.

Now, in a Humanistic State, the nature and purpose of the state is never clearly defined nor limited in the scope of its power. This is because all Humanistic States attempt to take on the nature and attributes of God. In Humanism, the State is, as Hegel said, 'God walking on Earth.'

For five thousand years, this has been the dominant characteristic of all Non-biblical states. The reason why such states attempt to take on the character, nature, and attributes of God is, as the Apostle Paul said, "All men know God."

Thus, because the Humanist will not honor God, as God, they must still manifest his attributes in the next best thing: the almighty, all-knowing, everywhere present State, who has its own doctrine of providence in State welfare. The State becomes the source of salvation and the end-all and be-all, alpha and omega, of all that is.

Such a State can have no Law because its presuppositions will not permit it to enact the real Law and only true Law, of God. Such States are invariably dominated by commercial interests whether they are Communist, Socialist, or Fascist, because they seek to control all that is within their realm of influence or control, the same as God does.

A word must be said here about the omniscience (all-knowing), omnipresence (everywhere present) and omnipotent (all-powerful) characteristics of the Humanist State.

As to the Humanistic State's will to omniscience, we see examples of this in the endless forms, applications, and information gathering aspects of the State in permits, licenses, tax forms, etc. The Humanist State must engage in such activities because it can never know when some new piece of information may turn up that will scuttle the State. It must also collect this information because it must know where everyone and everything is, in order to tax or seize it.

As to the Humanistic State's will to omnipresence, the State must be everywhere because God is everywhere, and it must watch everyone and everything, because the State must know of anyone propagating the wrong ideas or information. The State must know these things because the State is in constant danger of being over-thrown. Examples of this are seen in the postmen who act as agents in the field, local police, sheriffs, and state police, the 'Special Agents' of the I.R.S. and D.E.A., the Amtrak railroad police, the F.B.I., the C.I.A., the F.A.A. and countless other alphabet soup agencies, departments, bureaus, and service groups, all of whom are generically known as 'peace' officers.

As to the Humanistic State's will to omnipotence, the State must control all power as God does, because the State can't trust the people with power, because the people may want something contrary to the will of the State. This is the real need for the 100,000 Man Police force of current infamy. This is also the reason why all forms of transportation must have a police force to watch them, and why all major government buildings and agencies must have the same type of police forces.

As to the Humanistic State's will to providence in State welfare, it does this because God is in fact the real source of Providence. It does it also because the more people it has on welfare the fewer people there are who will join a reform movement. Humanistic States engage in welfare because they have a heart and compassion, etc., ad nauseum; in truth and reality all such States are fictitious entities and can not, therefore, have no heart.

There is also a legal reason for the welfare, in that they must grant some forms of welfare because without the welfare, there is no Lawful justification for their employment.

Today, four out of every ten people in America are on the dole in one form or another. Forty percent (40%) of the people are living off the other sixty (60%) percent of the population. And, ninety-eight (98%) percent of those working to support the forty percent, are engaged in commerce controlled by the State.

Two. States are consumers of resources, not producers. This fact is important to remember because so many politicians talk of creating jobs with various programs. But, what's forgotten is, the State only creates jobs at the expense of others who are working. Individual enterprise and not the State, is where all real, new jobs are created.

In states where the people do not directly control the State's consumption of resources, the State is out of control.

In Christian states, the power of the state is highly de-centralized and rests primarily within the county and township. This makes it easy for the people to keep an eye on the spending of local governments. The flow of tax money in Christian states is from the bottom up and was once collected at the county and state levels before it was sent on to the Federal government.

But, in Humanists States, the need is to centralize power in one state, which in America, is the Federal government.

In such a State, the people never control the flow of force and power in the State and yet, the propaganda of the State attempts to make it appear that they do. In Humanist States, the people do not control the tax rates. Instead, the government itself controls its own tax rates that are always levied to protect the states interests, not those of the people.

In simple terms, the further away the tax collector is from the people, the more likely there will be corruption and lawlessness in the tax system. And, there is more room for smoke and mirrors and sleight of hand and deception by the State.

But, in modern states the situation is significantly different. The Federal government in America, for example, along with one hundred fifty-seven other countries declared joint bankruptcy in September, 1944, at the Breton Woods Conference, in Breton Woods, New Hampshire. Since that time, the consumption of resources by the member states of the Breton Woods Conference have embarked on consumption programs that are unparalleled in the annals of recorded history.

The United States government not only consumes trillions of dollars in tax money every year, it also 'employs' millions of people that would otherwise be gainfully working in the production of real goods and services, and it also consumes millions of tons of raw and manufactured goods, not just in weapons systems it buys for its armed forces, but in automobiles, building materials, office machines and computers, and a whole host of other items.

The United States government is the largest single consumer of the taxes and work output of the American in history. Many people believe that this consumption is good for the nations economy, but in fact, it is a drain on the nations economy because none of the goods and services consumed are ever used in the production of new wealth and real jobs for the people as a whole.

Most of this consumption is for the creation of bureaus, departments, agencies, and services not authorized by the original Constitution, as we all know. It is this consumption of resources of all types that contributes to the massive inflation in this country over the last century, because such consumption represents a false stimulus to the nation's economy. A typical example of the current government's interference in the nations economy is seen in the billions spent to support prices of farm goods. In this case, the government consumes massive resources to pay others not to produce.

In Christian states, such consumption by the civil powers does not happen for the simple reason that the nature and purpose of civil government is defined in such a way that the civil government never exceeds its proper limits and thus, always constitutes a very small part of the nations total economy.

Four. States have at their disposal some means of enforcing the acts of the state.

Every state needs some means of enforcing the law of the land and protecting the people from evil. Such forces can be classified as either civil or military.

The civil force in Christian states is normally small because in Christian states there are fewer laws to break. The Law of the land is well known and the punishments for breaking the Law are well known. Indeed, everyone has a copy of the Law in his home; that is The Bible.

The military force in Christian states is also very small in terms of a standing army, yet it is very large in the number of troops that can be mobilized to repel invasion by an enemy. The military is small because Christian foreign policy is defensive, not offensive. That is, the Christian only goes to war to defend a just cause or after another has declared war on the Christian state. Mobilizing the people in a Christian state is relatively easy because all able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 55 are already a part of the militia which is always kept in a high state of readiness. A militia force is the most cost effective means of providing a military force to protect the nation.

In Humanist States, both the civil and military forces are always a larger than necessary percentage of the total population.

The civil law enforcement forces of a Humanist State are nearly always tied into the standing army, or military force, and is usually as large as, or larger than the military force. Thus, in America, city police, county sheriffs, and the state police or highway patrol, forces that guard transportation and communication, though paid by their state and local governments, are always tied into the standing army and often funded by them in part. This is the plan currently used by the Federal government of the United States.

It is common in Humanist States to find them waging war against other states in foreign lands, if they have the resources to do so. The aggressive nature of Humanism itself permits this in the treaties created between States. Very large standing armies are the norm in such States, in part, because the state must protect itself from its own people, because in no Humanist State do we find real Law. All the sources on Humanist States admit that their law is arbitrary and capricious and even among Non-christians, when this is perceived by the people, unrest is born which the Humanist leaders are keenly aware of.

Thus, the first American President to use the Secret Service as his bodyguards was A. Lincoln. Some have suggested that the real purpose of the Service today is, to protect the bondholders interest in the nations debt. If the President does any act that adversely impacts the bondholders interests, what better security can the bondholders have than to be the very ones who guard the President. It is worth noting that the Secret Service is a branch of the Treasury Department under the Secretary of the Treasury.

One of the purposes of forming the United Nations was to share the cost of making war. Recently, we have seen in Viet Nam, Desert Storm, and Bosnia, this policy in action. In part, this policy has been used to keep some war partners in the game by re-imbursing them for the costs of waging war. In simple terms, we ask, is the United States in such a poor cash flow position that it can no longer afford to wage foreign wars?

Five. States legislate, which means, states can either make law, or extend existing law derived from some authority.

In Christian states, the legislative functions of civil government are minimized. This is because the authority for all Law is the Scripture and the Customs and Usages of the people, sometimes called the common law. Thus, legislation in Christian states is usually done by extending the existing Law of Scripture or the common law, to new situations as they arise.

Legislatures may also enact into law the decisions of juries who are the final arbiters of what constitutes the Law of God.

The only other form of legislation in a Christian state is that of organizing the existing Laws into a convenient system that is easily understood and accessible by the people and the courts.

In Christian states there is little rule-making and regulations because the state can not interfere with the Sovereignty and Word of God. There are no permits and licenses for any Lawful form of activity, no subsidies, and the use of commercial law is practically prohibited.

Currently, in the United States government, the Congress makes no law without the prior existence of an Executive Order from the President, as Commander-in-Chief of the military side of the government.

On the administrative side of the Federal government, Congress, as Trustee's of the Chapter Eleven Bankruptcy of the United States are really responsible to the Bondholders of the United States debt. Congress controls the purse strings in such a way that the Bondholders always get the interest payments. By this means, some measure of the balance of power still exists between the Congress and the President.

Congress is also involved in the ratification of treaties because such may affect the rights of the Bondholders of the debt.

Six. States must have the capability to enforce the laws.

It is the function of the chief executive in every state to execute the laws against the lawless.

In Christian states, this is the primary function of the chief executive, whether he be called President, Governor, or Mayor. His secondary purpose is to protect the people from invasion by other states. The chief executive may also negotiate treaties or other arrangements with foreign states, but only on the terms and conditions of the Law of Scripture.

In Humanist states, especially since the Breton Woods treaty, the vast majority of the power of the State is kept in the hands of the chief executive, usually under some form of military or international law and this power is wielded through Executive Orders which then permit Congress to make an addition to the Codes to implement the E.O., which is also published in the Federal Register. The E.O. binds the Congress in all matters except those that would infringe on the Trusteeship of Congress and the bondholders.

Seven. States must have some means of determining whether or not the laws enforced by the state are lawful or legitimate, as well as the means to declare the same in Judicial proceedings.

In Christian states, the court only hears violations of God's Law and common law. Equity is not permitted because it gives discretion to the court to decide matters and such courts could rule in a manner contrary to Scripture. In other words, courts in equity grant too much power to the judge and are normally prohibited.

Juries in Christian court proceedings have the power to determine both the Law and the facts, and thus may decide that a law implemented by the state is bad law and over-turn it. In short, the jury may decide that the facts show the guilt of the defendant, but the law on which the defendant is charged is bad law, according to Scripture. The defendant is then released.

In Christian courts, attorneys are not allowed to argue the case, although they may advise a client who is either a defendant or demandant.

The court system in Christian states is usually very simple because the Law of God and the common law are simple. Jurisdictions and venues are relatively few in type. Proceedings are short with very few delays. In most cases, trials in Christian states last only a few days. It is rare to find a case that lasts for several weeks. In such courts, the Law of Evidence and Process is strictly adhered to.

And, since the common law is technically very precise, the vast majority of questions between Demandant and Defendant are resolved before going to trial. The object of process and the preliminary proceedings in Christian courts, is to reduce the Pleadings to the simplest possible set of issues for adjudication.

In Humanist court systems, on the other hand, we find a very complex system of adjudication. In America, the courts all serve the needs of the Chief Executive and are his agents in the field under military law. For example, the American Bar Association, incorporated in the District of Columbia in 1873 is the body that regulates the agents in the field. Further, the Department of Justice, created in 1870, regulates U.S. attorneys in the field. Anyone who expects justice from such a system truly is non compos mentis.

The system is complex because there are so many laws extant, the rules of evidence and process are usually determined by the judge during the trial. This makes for long, involved, and expensive adjudication that is fraught with errors that call for appeals, again and again. The jury has no real power to determine anything beyond the facts as they are instructed by the judge. If the jury violates the judge's instructions or makes a ruling on the law, the entire trial can be voided on the spot, or appealed on the grounds that the jury violated its instructions.

In Humanistic courts, the only real law in the court is that which comes out of the judges mouth. Attorneys are agents of the court and may only use the law of the court in which they practice. The client is normally non compos mentis, i.e., declared not mentally competent to defend himself.

In other words, the current court system does not exist to defend anyone's rights except those of the Humanistic state.

Last, the reason why Humanist states declare that no man can take the law into his own hands is because the people they are talking to, being Humanists as well, have no law. When one takes the law into his own hands he is determining the civil relationship between himself and another by usurping the Civil Rights Act for himself. Such is an impossibility under God's Law, because God has already determined the relationship between one man and another by writing His Law on the heart of Good and Lawful Christian Men and Women.

Eight. States have relations with other states, foreign and domestic.

Among Christian states, the Law by which all have relations with one another is, of course, the Scripture. The foreign policy of Christian states is thus predictable and certain, which makes for a very stable and long lasting foreign policy.

In terms of domestic policy between the states of the union, there is no need for a commerce clause, nor a comity clause, or good faith clause, since, between Christian states the Law between them is again, identical to the foreign policy Law between nations.

We note with interest that the Byzantine Empire lasted for nearly 1100 years as a strong and independent state, until it began to engage in commerce. It fell within 100 years.

In Humanist States, the situation is very different, usually chaotic and confused, which often leads to war unnecessarily.

In part this is because the language of treaties is virtually impossible to understand between Humanists because of the relativistic nature of meaning in Humanism.

In part it is also because all Humanist States are militarily and commercially based and, in theory, are supposed to harken to international law, which is constantly changing in its meaning and scope of authority.

In short, there is no good reason between Humanist States for anyone to get along unless its in their best interest to do so.

In the U.S., the Federal law used to control what were once individual states, is municipal law, a limited version of international law.

For an example of how international law is converted to use in municipal situations, see the article "That Knock on the Door" in this Issue on 'Searches and Seizures.'

('Let This Mind Be In You' continued in Issue the Fifteenth)

The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men

A Sermon Preached At Princeton, On the 17th of May, 1776. Being The General Fast appointed by the Congress through the United Colonies. To which is added, An Address to the Natives of Scotland residing in America.

John Witherspoon, D.D.

President of the College of New Jersey.

Philadelphia:

Printed and sold by R. Aitken, Printer and

Bookseller, opposite The London Coffee-

House, Front-Street. MDCCLXXVL.

To the Honourable John Hancock, Esq.

President of the Congress of the United States of America; in Testimony of the highest esteem for his personal character and public conduct, the following Sermon is humbly inscribed by his most obedient humble servant, The Author

Editor's Note: No changes have been made in the original manuscript except for conversion of ligature to their current English language style. Page numbers in the original are in brackets [ ]. Footnotes { } have been moved to the end of the text. This is Part One of Three, to follow.

Part One:

A Sermon &c.

Psal. lxxvi, 10.

Surely the Wrath of Man shall praise thee;

the remainder of Wrath shalt thou restrain.

There is not a greater evidence either of the reality or the power of religion, than a firm belief of God's universal presence, and a constant mention to the influence and operation of his providence. It is by this means that the Christian may be said, in the emphatical scripture language, to walk with God, and to endure in seeing him who is invisible. [2]

The doctrine of divine providence is very full and complete in the sacred oracles. It extends not only to things which we may think of great moment, and therefore worthy of notice, but to things the most indifferent and inconsiderable: Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing, says our Lord, and one of them falleth not on the ground without your heavenly Father; nay, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. It extends not only to things beneficial and salutary, or to the direction and assistance of those who are the servants of the living God; but to things seemingly most hurtful and destructive, and to persons the most refractory and disobedient. He over-rules all his creatures, and all their actions. Thus we are told, that fire, hail, snow, vapour, and stormy wind, fulfil his Word, in the course of nature; and even so the most impetuous and disorderly passions of men, that are under no restraint from themselves, are yet perfectly subject to the dominion of Jehovah. They carry his commission, they obey his orders, they are limited and restrained by his authority, and they conspire with every thing else in promoting his [3] glory. There is the greater need to take notice of this, that men are not generally sufficiently aware of the distinction between the Law of God and his purpose; they are apt to suppose, that as the temper of the sinner is contrary to the one, so the outrages of the sinner are able to defeat the other; than which nothing can be more false. The truth is plainly asserted, and nobly expressed by the Psalmist in the text, Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee; the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain.

This psalm was evidently composed as a song of praise for some signal victory obtained, which was at the same time a remarkable deliverance from threatening danger. The author was one or other of the later prophets, and the occasion probably the unsuccessful assault of Jerusalem, by the army of Senacherib, king of Assyria, in the days of Hezekiah. Great was the insolence and boasting of his generals and servants against the city of the living God, as may be seen in the thirty-sixth chapter of Isaiah. Yet it pleased God to destroy their enemies and, by his own [4] immediate interposition, to grant them deliverance. Therefore the Psalmist says in the fifth and sixth verses of this psalm, The stout-hearted are spoiled, they have kept their sleep. None of the men of might have found their hands. At thy rebuke, O God of Jacob! both the chariot and the horse are cast into a deep sleep. After a few more remarks to the same purpose, he draws the inference, or makes the reflection in the text, Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee; the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain; which may be paraphrased thus, The fury and injustice of oppressors, shall bring in a tribute of praise to thee; the influence of thy righteous providence shall be clearly discerned; the countenance and support thou wilt give to thine own people shall be gloriously illustrated; thou shalt set the bounds which the boldest cannot pass.

I am sensible, my brethren, that the time and occasion of this psalm, may seem to be in one respect ill suited to the interesting circumstances of this country at present. It was composed after the victory was obtained; whereas we are now [5] but putting on the harness, and entering upon an important contest, the length of which it is impossible to foresee, and the issue of which it will perhaps be thought presumption to foretell. But as the truth, with respect to God's moral government, is the same and unchangeable; as the issue, in the case of Senacherib's invasion, did but lead the prophet to acknowledge it; our duty and interest conspire in calling upon us to improve it. And I have chosen to insist upon it on this day of solemn humiliation as it will probably help us to a clear and explicit view of what should be the chief subject of our prayers and endeavours, as well as the great object of our hope and trust, in our present situation.

The truth, then, asserted in this text, which I propose to illustrate and improve is, - That all the dreaded passions of' men, whether exposing the innocent to private injury, or whether they are the armies of divine judgment in public calamity, shall, in the end, be to the praise of God: Or, to apply it more particularly to the present state of the American Colonies, and the plague of war, - The ambition [6] of mistaken princes, the cunning and cruelty of oppressive and corrupt ministers, and even the inhumanity of brutal soldiers, however dreadful, shall finally promote the glory of God, and in the meantime, while the storm continues, his mercy and kindness shall appear in prescribing bounds to their rage and fury.

In discoursing of this subject, it is my intention, through the assistance of divine grace,

I. To point out to you in some particulars, how the wrath of man praises God.

II. To apply there principles to our present situation, by inferences of truth for your instruction and comfort, and by suitable exhortations to duty in the important crisis.

In the first place, I am to point out to you in some particulars how the wrath of man praises God. I say in some instances, because it is far from being in my power, either to mention or explain the whole. There is an unsearchable depth in [7] the divine counsels, which it is impossible for us to penetrate. It is the duty of every good man to place the most unlimited confidence in divine wisdom, and to believe that those measures of providence that are most unintelligible to him, are yet planned with the same skill, and directed to the same great purposes as others, the reason and tendency of which he can explain in the clearest manner. But where revelation and experience enables us to discover the wisdom, equity, or mercy of divine providence, nothing can be more delightful or profitable to a serious mind, and therefore I beg your attention to the following remarks.

In the first place, the wrath of man praises God, as it is an example and illustration of divine truth, and clearly points out the corruption of our nature, which is the foundation stone of the doctrine of redemption. Nothing can be more absolutely necessary to true religion, than a clear and full conviction of the sinfulness of our nature and state. Without this there can be neither repentance in the [8] sinner, nor humility in the believer. Without this, all that is said in scripture of the wisdom and mercy of God, in providing a Saviour, is without force and without meaning. Justly does our Saviour say, The whole have no need of a physician, but those that are sick. I came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. Those who are not sensible that they are sinners, will treat ever exhortation to repentance, and every offer of mercy, with disdain or defiance.

But where can we have a more affecting-view of the corruption of our nature, than in the wrath of man, when exerting itself in oppression, cruelty, and blood. It must be owned, indeed, that this truth is abundantly manifest in terms of the greatest tranquillity. Others may, if they please, treat the corruption of our nature as a chimera; for my part, I see it everywhere, and I feel it every day. All the disorders in human society, and the greatest part even of the unhappiness we are exposed to, arises from the envy, malice, covetousness, and other lusts of man. If we [9] and all about us were just what we ought to be in all respects, we should not need to go any further for heaven, for it should be upon earth. But war and violence present a spectacle, still more awful. How affecting is it to think, that the lust of domination should be so violent and universal? That men should so rarely be satisfied with their own possessions and acquisitions, or even with the benefit that would arise from mutual service, but should look upon the happiness and tranquillity of others, as an obstruction to their own. That, as if the great law of nature were not enough. Dust thou art, and to dust thou shalt return, they should be so curiously set for the destruction of each other. It is shocking to think, since the first murder of Abel by his brother Cain, what havoc has been made of man by man in every age. What is it that fills the pages of history, but the wars and contentions of princes and empires? What vast numbers has lawless ambition brought into the field, and deliver as a prey to the destructive sword? [10]

If we dwell a little upon the circumstances, they become deeply affecting. The mother bears a child with pain, rears him by the laborious attendance of many years; yet in the prime of life, in the vigour of health, and bloom of beauty, in a moment he is cut down by the dreadful instruments of death. Every battle of the warrior is with confused noise, and the garments rolled in blood; but the horror of the scene is not confined to the field of slaughter. Few go there unrelated, or fall unlamented; in every hostile encounter, what must be the impression upon the relations of the deceased? The bodies of the dead can only be seen, or the cries of the dying heard for a single day, but many days shall not put an end to the mourning of a parent for a beloved son, the joy and support of his age, or of the widow and helpless offspring for a father, taken away in the fullness of health and vigour.

But if this may be justly said of all wars between man and man, what shall we be able to say that is suitable to the [11] abhorred scene of civil war between citizen and citizen? How deeply affecting is it, that those who are the same in complexion, the same in blood, in language, and in religion, should, notwithstanding, butcher one another with unrelenting rage, and glory in the deed? That men should lay waste the fields of their fellow subjects, with whose provision they themselves had be often fed, and consume with devouring fire those houses, in which they had often found a hospitable shelter.

These things are apt to overcome a weak mind with fear, or overwhelm it with sorrow, and in the greatest number are apt to excite the highest indignation, and kindle up a spirit of revenge. If this last has no other tendency than to direct and invigorate the measures of self-defence, I do not take upon me to blame it, on the contrary, I call it necessary and laudable.

But what I mean at this time to prove by the preceding reflections, and wish [12] to impress on your minds, is the depravity of our nature. From whence come wars and fightings among you, says the apostle James*, come they not hence even from your lusts that war in your members. Men of lax and corrupt principles, take great delight in speaking to the praise of human nature, and extoling its dignity, without distinguishing what it was, at its first creation, from what it is in its present fallen state. These fine speculations are very grateful to a worldly mind. They are also much more pernicious to uncautious and unthinking youth, than even the temptations to a dissolute and sensual life, against which they are fortified by the dictates of natural conscience, and a sense of public shame. But I appeal from these visionary reasonings to the history of all ages, and the inflexible testimony of daily experience. These will tell us what men have been in their practice, and from thence you may judge what they are by nature, while unrenewed. If I am not mistaken, a cool and candid attention, [13] either to the past history, or present state of the world, but above all, to the ravages of lawless power, ought to humble us in the dust. It should at once lead us to acknowledge the just view given us in scripture, of our lost state; to desire the happy influence of renewing grace each for ourselves; and to long for the dominion of righteousness and peace, when Men shall beat their swords into plowshares, and the spears into pruning hooks; when nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more {1}, {2}.

2. The wrath of man praiseth God as the instrument in his hand for bringing sinners to repentance and for the correction and improvement of his own children. Whatever be the nature of the affliction with which he visits either persons, families, or nations; whatever be the disposition or intention of those whose malice he employs as a scourge, the design on his part is, to rebuke men for iniquity, to bring them to repentance, and to promote their holiness and peace. The salutory nature, and sanctifying influence of affliction in general, is often taken notice of in scripture, both as making a part of the purpose of God, and the experience of his saints. {3} Now no affliction, says the apostle, for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: Nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them, which are exercised thereby. But what we are particularly led to observe by the subject of this discourse is, that the wrath of man, or the violence of the oppressor praiseth God in this respect, for it has a peculiar tendency to alarm the secure conscience, to convince and humble the obstinate sinner. This is plain from the nature of the thing, and from the testimony of experience. Public calamities particularly the destroying sword, is so awful that it cannot but have a powerful influence in leading men, to consider the presence and the power of God. It threatens them not only in themselves but touches them in all that is dear to them, whether relations or possessions. The prophet Isaiah says, Yea in the way of thy judgments, O Lord, have we waited for thee, -- for when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness. He considers [17] it as the most powerful mean of alarming the secure, and subduing the obstinate. {4} Lord when thy hand is lifted up, they will not see, but they shall see and be ashamed for their envy at the people, yea the fire of thine enemies shall devour them. It is also sometimes represented as a symptom of a hopeless and irrecoverable state, when public judgments have no effect. Thus says the prophet Jeremiah, {5} O Lord are not thine eyes upon the truth? thou hast stricken them, but they have not grieved; thou hast consumed them, but they have refused to receive correction: They have made their faces harder than a rock, they have refused to return. We can easily see in the history of the children of Israel, how severe strokes brought them to submission and penitence. When he slew them then they fought him, and they returned and enquired early after God, and they remembered that God was their rock, and the high God their redeemer {6}. Both nations in general, and private person are [18] apt to grow remiss and lax in a time of prosperity and seeming security, but when their earthly comforts are endangered or withdrawn, it lays them under a kind of necessity to seek for something better in their place. Men must have comfort from one quarter or another. When earthly things are in a pleasing and promising condition, too many are apt to find their rest, and be satisfied with them as their only portion. But when the vanity and passing nature of all created comfort is discovered, they are compelled to look for something more durable as well as valuable. What therefore can be more to the praise of God, than that when a whole people have forgotten their resting place, when they have abused the privileges, and despised the mercies, they should by distress and suffering be made to hearken to the rod, and return to their duty.

There is an inexpressible depth and variety in the judgments of God, as in all his other works, but we may lay down this as a certain principle, that if there were no sin, there could be no suffering. Therefore they are certainly for [19] the correction of sin, or for the trial, illustration, and perfecting of the grace and virtue of his own people. We are not to suppose, that those who suffer most, or who suffer soonest, are therefore more criminal than others. Our Saviour himself though it necessary to give a caution against this rash conclusion, as we are informed by the evangelist Luke, There were present at that season some that told him of the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galileans were sinners above all the Galileans, because they suffered such things, I tell you nay, but except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. {7} I suppose we may say with sufficient warrant, that it often happens, that those for whom God hath designs of the greatest mercy, are first brought to the trial, that they may enjoy in due time, the salutary effect of the unpalatable medicine.

I must also take leave to observe, and I hope no pious humble sufferer [20] will be the unwilling to make the application, that there is often a discernible mixture of sovereignty and righteousness in providential dispensations. It is the prerogative of God to do what he will with his own, but he often displays his justice itself, by throwing into the furnace those, who, though they may not be visible worse than others, may yet have more to answer for, as having been favoured with more distinguished privileges, both civil and sacred. It is impossible for us to make a just and full comparison of the character either of persons or nations, and it would be extremely foolish for any to attempt it, either for increasing their own security, or impeaching the justice of the Supreme Ruler. Let us therefore neither forget the truth, nor go beyond it. His mercy fills the earth. He is also known by the judgment which he executeth. The wrath of man in its most tempestuous rage, fulfills his will, and finally promotes the good of his chosen.

3. The wrath of man praiseth God, as he sets bounds to it, or restrains it by his providence, and sometimes makes it evidently a means of promoting and illustrating his glory...

(continued in Issue the Fifteenth)

Endnotes

{1} Micah iv. 5.

(Editor's Note. The Author here is chastising the work "Common Sense," by Thomas Paine, an atheist of the day and not well liked.)

{2} I cannot help embracing this opportunity of making a remark or two upon a virulent reflexion thrown not against this doctrine in a well known pamphlet, Common Sense. The author of that work expresses himself thus, "if the first king of any country was by election, that likewise establishes a precedent for the next; for to say, that the right of all future generations is taken away, by the act of the first electors, in their choice not only of a king, but of a family of kings for ever, hath no parallel in or out of scripture, but the doctrine of original sin, which supposes the free will of all men lost in Adam; and from such comparison, and it will admit of no other, hereditary succession can derive no glory. For as in Adam all sinned, and as in the first electors all men obeyed; as in the one all mankind were subjected to Satan, and in the other to Sovereignty; as are innocence was lost in the first, and our authority in the last; and as both disable us from reassuming some former state and privilege, it unanswerably follows that original sin and hereditary succession are parallels. Dishonorable rank! Inglorious connection! Yet the most subtle sophist cannot produce a juster simile. Without the shadow of reasoning, he is pleased to represent the doctrine of original sin as an object of contempt or abhorrence. I beg leave to demur a little to the candor, the prudence, and the justice of this proceeding.

1. Was it modest or candid for a person without name or character, to talk in this supercilious manner of a doctrine that has been espoused and defended by many of the greatest and best men that the world has ever seen and made an essential part of the established Creeds and Confessions of all the Protestant churches without exception? I thought the grand modern plea had been freedom of sentiment, and charitable thoughts of one another. Are so many of us, then, beyond the reach of this gentleman's charity. I do assure him that such presumption and self-confidence are no recommendation to me either of his character or sentiments.

2. Was it prudent, when he was pleading a public cause, to speak in such approbrious terms of a doctrine which he knew or ought to have known was believed and professed, by, a great majority of very different denominations. Is this gentleman ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy of the Christian faith? Are men so little tenacious of their religious sentiments, whether true or false? The prophet thought otherwise, who said, Hath a nation changed their gods who are yet no gods? Was it the way to obtain the favor of the public to despise what they hold sacred. Or shall we suppose this author so astonishing ignorant, as to think that all men now, whose favour is worth asking, have given up the doctrine of the New Testament. If he does, he is greatly mistaken.

3. In fine, I ask, where was the justice of this proceeding? Is there so little to be said for the doctrine of original sin, that it is not to be refuted, but despised? Is the state of the world such, as to render this doctrine not only false, but incredible? Has the fruit been of such a quality as to exclude all doubts of the goodness of the tree? On the contrary, I cannot help being of opinion, that such has been the visible state of the world in every age, as cannot be accounted for on any other principles, that what we learn from the word of God, that the imagination of the heart of man is only evil from his youth, and that continually. Genesis vi, 5-8, 21.

{3} Habakkuk, vii, 11.

{4} Isaiah xxvi, 11.

{5} Psalms lxxviii, 34, 35.

{6} Jeremiah v. 5.

{7} Luke xiii, 1.

That Knock on The Door

For those who believe, or have been trained to believe, that you must open your door when someone knocks on it, consider the following:

"The maxim that 'a man's house is his castle' does not protect a man's house as his property or imply that, as such, he has a right to defend it by extreme means. The sense in which the house has a peculiar immunity is that it is sacred for the protection of the man's person. A trespass upon his property is not a justification for killing the trespasser. It is a man's house, barred and inclosing his person, that is his castle. The lot of ground on which it stands has no such sanctity. When a man opens his door and puts himself partly outside of it, he relinquishes the protection which, remaining within and behind closed doors, it would have afforded him. Com v. McWilliams, 21 Pa. Dist. R. 1131." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), pp. 1449-1450.

Or, if you believe that the police need a warrant to enter your house, consider the following, which is from "Federal Searches and Seizures," by Rex D. Davis, 1964, available in from the Christ's assembly at California.

Note: "Refused admittance," and "no permission being given," is when there is some kind of response from within.

3.26 Forceful Entry to Arrest.

Officers may use force in breaking into a premises in order to arrest with or without a warrant provided they have been refused admittance after making the necessary notification.
18 U.S.C. 3109. Breaking doors or windows for entry or exit.
The officer may break open any inner or outer door or window of a house, or any part of a house, or anything therein, to execute a search warrant, if, after notice of his authority and purpose, he is refused admittance or when necessary to liberate himself or a person aiding him in the execution of the warrant.

At least one jurisdiction appears to distinguish an officer's authority to break in without a warrant from the same authority when he is armed with a warrant.

Unless the necessities of the moment require that the officer break down a door, he cannot do so without a warrant; and if in reasonable contemplation there is opportunity to get a warrant, or the arrest could as well be made by some other method, the outer door to a dwelling cannot be broken to make an arrest without a warrant. The right to break open a door to make an arrest requires something more than the mere right to arrest. (Accruing v. United States, 1949, 85 U.S. App.DC 394, 179 F.2d. 456.)
We think that under the authorities, officers without a warrant cannot enter, even without actually breaking, a private dwelling to search for a suspected felon, no permission being given and no circumstances of necessitous haste being present. (Morrison v. United States, CA DC 1958, 262 F.2d 449.)

3.261 What Constitutes "Breaking"?

"In the absence of any allegation of coercion, the action of the officers who bore a valid warrant of arrest and did not force their way into her apartment but entered after the door had been opened by the defendant, in 'pushing' their way into the apartment was not of a character that it constituted such unreasonable force that would invalidate an otherwise valid search." United States v. Lord, DC NY 1960, 184 F. Supp. 923.

3.262 Entry by Subterfuge without Force.

There is considerable authority to the effect that use of subterfuge to gain entrance to arrest or search is not improper. Of course, if "breaking" is involved, it is necessary for the officers to announce their authority and purpose in demanding entrance. Where a Federal agent, armed with a valid arrest warrant, gained entrance to the defendant's apartment by stating he was an agent from the County Assessor's Office, the Court held the entrance lawful, stating:

There is no constitutional mandate forbidding the use of a deception in executing a valid arrest warrant. The case of Gouled v. United States, 1921, 255 U.S. 298, 41 S.Ct. 261, 65 L.Ed. 647, relied on by appellant, holds that a search warrant is invalid even though entry is procured by stealth rather than force. The instant case is different in that the search was incident to an arrest under a valid arrest warrant. "Criminal activity is such that stealth and strategy are necessary weapons in the arsenal of the police officer." Sherman v. United States, 1958, 356 U.S. 369, 372, 78 S.Ct. 819, 820, 2 L.Ed.2d 848.

And, whether the postman is an agent in the field, consider the following:

9.15 Mail Watch

Ordinarily, a mail watch does not constitute a search.

A "mail watch" or "mail cover" occurs where postal employees scrutinize the mail addressed to an individual and note the information contained on the outside of the envelope. It is distinguishable from the opening and searching of first class mail which is unconstitutional unless legally authorized.

Defendant further suggests that the use of a "mail cover" tainted the Governments evidence. That is, a clerk was assigned in the Post Office to scrutinize all mail addressed to defendant at the Rittenhouse Hotel and to note the names and addresses of the senders. The motion to suppress cannot be granted for that reason, however, since it was not shown that the fruits of the mail watch were used (directly or indirectly) in the preparation of the Government's charges. Furthermore, it has been held in this district that even where results of a "mail watch" are communicated to the Justice Department in violation of Postal Regulations, the evidence will not necessarily be suppressed. United States v. Schwartz, DC Pa. 1959, 176 F.Supp.613.

There was no "taking" of the Costello's mail with intent to deprive them of it. It was not prying into their business or secrets to note what the senders had made public on the face of the letters. And the mere fact of detention without proof that it was for unlawful purpose is insufficient to constitute a violation of the statute.
Any delay here was merely incidental to a lawful watch authorized by the Postal Regulations. United States v. Costello, DC N.Y. 1957 F.Supp. 461.

Don't open that door for anyone!!!

11.19. Numbers mentioned in connection with serious and dignified subjects and in formal writing are spelled out.

Numbers

Style Manual, United States Government Printing Office, 1959.

Tyrant

The word tyrant, from the Greek tyranos, means a secular ruler, one who rules without the sanction of religious law, "with an authority that was not derived from the worship, a power that religion had not established." Its new principal of law was democracy, "the obedience of man to man." The Nature of the American System, page 45, by Rousas John Rushdoony, 1978.

In despotic governments, the tyrannical proceedings of the subordinate officers are often more intolerable than those of the prince. Crabb's English Synonymes, page 19, by George Crabb, A.M., 1890.

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

On Chastising Children

A move twenty years ago, being in the habits of intimacy and connexion in civil life with a respectable gentleman, he one day, in conversation on family affairs, related, with tears, a transaction between himself and one of his sons, a fine boy, about ten or eleven years of age. The son was by no means the lowest in the esteem of his father, but had a full share of his affection.

It happened one day that the boy told an untruth knowingly, which afterwards came to the knowledge of his father, who determined to chastise him severely for it. He took the boy and an instrument of correction into a chamber, and there reprimanded him, by setting forth the exceeding heinousness of the sin against God, and the danger thereby of his own soul. He then proceeded to the distressing work of correction, (I have no doubt that every stroke was as afflictive to the parent as to the child;) after which, on leaving the room, the father began to fear that he had exceeded a due measure, (which I conceived was an excess of parental affection,) he made as though he was going down the stairs after shutting the door; but pausing a little, he returned softly to the door, where he waited some time, hearing the sobbing and crying of the boy. After a while the father heard a movement and began to think of retreating, but after descending a step or two, he heard his son speak, on which he softly resumed his former station, and looking through the key-hole of the door, perceived his son on his knees, acknowledging his guilt and shame before God, and praying for forgiveness; thanking God for favoring him with such a father as would not suffer sin upon him: also praying for his brothers and family.

To parents, it is unnecessary to dwell on the feelings of an affectionate father under such circumstances, the language of whom corresponds with that of his heavenly Father: --- "As many as I love I rebuke and chasten" -- "Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him." Psalm ciii. 13.

A Scottish Legend

A married couple of the Scottish highlanders had thrice lost their only child, each dying at an early age. Upon the death of the last, the father became boisterous, and uttered his complaints in the loudest tones.

The death of the child happened late in the spring when, in the more inhabited straths, sheep were abroad; but from the blasts in that high and stormy region, they were still confined in the cot. In a dismal, stormy evening, the man, unable to stifle his anguish, went out, lamenting aloud, for a lamb to treat his friends with at the wake (or funeral feast). At the door of the cot he found a stranger standing before the entrance. He was astonished, in such a night, so far from any frequented place! The stranger was plainly attired, but he had a countenance expressive of singular mildness and benevolence; and, addressing the father in a sweet impressive voice, asked what he did there, amidst the tempest.

He was filled with awe, which he could not account for, and said he came for a lamb.

"What kind of a lamb do you mean to take?" Said the stranger.

"The very best that I can find," he replied; "as it is to entertain my friends; and I hope you will share of it."

"Do your sheep make any resistance when you take away the lambs?"

"Never," was the answer.

"How differently am I treated," said the traveler, "when I come to visit my sheepfold, I take, as I am well entitled to do, the best lamb to myself, and my ears are filled with the clamor of discontent by these ungrateful sheep, whom I have fed, watched, and protected."

He looked up in amazement, but ---- the vision had fled.

Issue the Fifteenth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

The Law of Identification...

Admissions and Confessions, Part Three...

Common Right vs. Franchise...

Let This Mind Be In You, Part Four ...

The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men, Part Two...

Miscellaneous Notes...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

The Law of Identification

The purpose of printing the following documentation is to show that you, being a Christian, have the ability to become separate from and remain separate from the secular world of law (codes, rules and regulations) by asserting God's Law and your Christian character in everything you do, thereby avoiding the esoteric pitfalls of Metaphysical Humanism. Identifying with any other law other than God's Law is to bring yourself down into the mud with self-reasoning natural persons, human beings and other God-less entities of like kind, as the following evidences. These are excerpts from the book, Principles of Judicial Proof (1913), by John Henry Wigmore, who was a professor of law at Northwestern University, around the turn of this century, and is regarded as the best modern authority on evidence.

"In trying to arrive at the nature of Identity we are forced to a certain extent to discuss Metaphysics: this is unavoidable, and it is the neglect of what Metaphysics teaches which has in our opinion led to the confusion and contradictions on the subject which exists in the law.

"The physiological explanation, when one state of consciousness is said to revive a similar state, doubtless is that the two similar states have a numerically single nerve element as their basis; the two images omit a common cell element in vibration and this is called an identity of seat. [Binet, op. cit. pp. 125, 126.] This appears to us to point to identity being the ultimate state. But for the purpose of discussion it seems clear that what is really the important matter is the amount of difference which is perceived; and we think that in most cases when a witness is able to swear to great likeness, in the absence of any specified points of difference it should be accepted as an identification even though the witness shrinks from using that term. If an advocate persists in asking, 'Will you swear that they are the same?' many witnesses will answer, 'No,' and on paper and to the unreflecting mind this will considerably weaken the effect of the evidence. Such an advocate should be asked in his turn to define what he means by 'same,' and if he attempts to do this, it will soon become apparent that his question as so addressed is not one that can be fairly given the direct answer, Yes or No. If the [*68] witness attempts to give any other response, he is often charged with prevarication, whereas it is not his fault that he does so, but the form of his interrogator's question compels him to do it.

'Two objects are similar,' says Wundt, 'when certain of their characteristics correspond, while others are different;' and perfect likeness--to indicate which the term 'identity' is sometimes used-- whether of quality or of intensity, must be estimated for practical purposes by indistinguishableness when attention is closely directed to the two objects.

"We shall begin by insisting on a few propositions: viz. (1) that you cannot be aware of identity unless you have also diversity; (2) that you cannot ask whether a thing is generally the same, but you must confine your questions to a certain aspect of it; (3) that we select that aspect to suit our interests, and such interests are usually practical; (4) that identity or the relation of sameness is ideal, it lies in the view we take of things, and not in the nature of things themselves; (5) that the word 'same' is used ambiguously and that it is a different problem when we ask whether an individual remains the same, and when we ask whether two things are the same.

"(1) the first proposition applies whether we are speaking of the resemblance of two things or of the continuous identity of one. 'In order that the mind may perceive the resemblance of two images,' says Binet, 'they must differ a little; if they do not, they become added together and form a single image.' [Binet, Psychology of Reasoning, p. 120.]Professor Sully writes: 'The visual recognition of a thing as identical with something previously perceived takes place by help of the idea of persistence. (It involves) the comparison of successive impressions and the detection of similarity and diversity of change. [Sully, Outlines of Psychology, p. 155.]

"(2) If the persistence is in the object itself, this implies a sameness of character attaching to the thing itself, i.e. a qualitative sameness, and further the avoidance of any absolute break in its existence. When, however, it is asked in what the sameness of quality consists, it will be found that no reply can be given, unless the point or particular aspect of which you were thinking is specified. A general reply cannot be given because we do not know the general character which is taken to make the thing's essence; it is not always material substance, nor shape, nor size, nor color. The identity lies [*66] really in the view we take of it, and that view is often a mere chance idea; the character therefore lies outside of and beyond the fact taken.

"(3) How then do we determine in what respect we shall ask of a thing whether it is the same or not? Professor Stout seems to have answered this question in his remarks on what he calls 'thinghood.' It depends on interest: we take what answer for practical purposes as real, identical, etc.: on the perceptual level this interest is purely practical. It is the interest of the moment which determines how we look at a thing, and we look at it differently, according to the fluctuation of interest. [Stout, Manual of Psychology, pp. 327 et seq.] And this is why we say that the rule of convenience is the one to be followed in deciding whether events belong to the same transaction or not. Our interest here is solely as to how we shall dispose judicially of the charges brought against the accused in the most convenient manner, and the considerations which chiefly influence us are whether the same witnesses can speak to all the charges and whether those charges can be kept separate before the mind without risk of confusion or prejudice, if they are taken together. The fact that the events happened at different times and places and such like reasons are irrelevant in themselves save in so far as they hinder or promote our convenience.To seek to convert such reasons into an objective general test of identity and difference seems to us to be both meaningless and irrational.

(4) The relation of Similarity to Identity will now be described. 'Similarity,' says Bradley, 'is nothing in the world but more or less unspecified sameness.' 'The feeling that two things are similar need not imply the perception of the identical point, but none the less this feeling is based always on partial sameness,' [Bradley, op. cit., p. 348, and note 1.] and elsewhere he says that Resemblance is the perception of the more or less unspecified identity of two distinct things. It differs from Identity in its lowest form, i.e. where things are taken as the same without specific awareness of the point or sameness and distinction or that from the diversity, because it implies the distinct consciousness that the two things are two and different.

It differs again from Identity in a more explicit form because it is of the essence of Resemblance that the point or points of sameness should remain at least partly undistinguished and unspecified. And, further, the feeling which belongs to the experience of similarity is different from that which belongs to the experience of sameness proper. But resemblance is based always on partial sameness, though the specific feeling of resemblance is not itself the partial identity which it involves, and partial identity need not imply likeness proper at all. The writer is aware that this view is disputed by more than one philosopher: they hold that Resemblance is not based on Identity, but is an ultimate idea, or even that Identity is based on Resemblance.

This Binet writes, 'to explain the resemblance between two states or by a partial identity of their elements simplifies nothing at all. For it replaces the idea of resemblance by the ideas of Identity and unity which are merely its derivatives. Resemblance is a single, ultimate, and irreducible idea.' [Binet, op. cit., p. 129.] Similarly Professor James says, 'So here any theory that would base likeness on identity, and not rather identity on likeness must fail;' again, 'likeness must be conceived as a [*67] special complication of identity, but rather that identity must be conceived as a special degree of likeness,likeness and difference are ultimate relations perceived. As a matter of fact, no two sensations, no two objects of all those we know, are in scientific rigor identical. We call those of them identical whose difference is unperceived. Over and above this we have a conception of absolute sameness, it is true, but this, like so many of our conceptions, is an ideal construction got by following a certain direction of serial increase to its maximum supposable extreme. It plays an important part among other permanent meanings possessed by us in our ideal intellectual constructions. But it plays no part whatever in explaining psychologically how we perceive likenesses between simple things.' [W. James, Principles of Psychology, vol. I, pp. 532-533.]

We remember to have read in a judgment of one of the Indian High Courts (unfortunately we cannot now give the reference) that the judges considered the case was not proved because the evidence only established likeness and not identity, and it is no uncommon thing to hear evidence given that a witness can swear that two things or two persons are very like, but he will not swear that they are the same: such testimony is usually considered to fall short of an identification. Now if identity is based on resemblance, what more is required than the assertion that two things are very like? It is the fact that such questions arise in law that is our excuse for pursuing this controversy concerning Resemblance and Identity a little further. The position of the one side is that Identity is nothing more than a special degree of resemblance with the difference between the two objects unperceived; the content of the other is that all resemblance is partial identity, but the points of sameness are not fully specified, and that terms such as 'exact likeness' 'precise similarity' are misleading. For as soon as you have removed all internal difference, and resemblance is carried to such a point that perceptible difference ceases, then you have identity. As soon as you begin to analyze resemblance you get something else than it, and when you argue from resemblance, what you use is not resemblance, but the point of resemblance, and a point of resemblance is clearly identity.

"(5) At the same time it must be remarked that difference is not always fatal to identity. But here we are using 'identity' in another sense. A quotation will explain this: 'Real identity,' says Dr. Ward, 'no more involves exact similarity than exact similarity involves sameness of things; on the contrary, we are wont to find the same thing alter with time so that exact similarity after an interval, so far from suggesting one thing, is often the surest proof that there are two concerned. Of such real identity, then, it would seem we must have direct experience; and we have it in the continuous presentation of the bodily self;The same writer points out the ambiguity in the word 'same' whereby it means either individual identity or indistinguishable resemblance: in the former we have mere relation, for two individuals partially coincide. Resemblance itself may be fatal to identification, when the law of being is changed." Wigmore, Principles of Judicial Proof (1913), pp. 65-68.

Since Lincoln's War and the Reconstruction Acts that followed, all 'citizens' are presumed by the U.S., State, County and City governments to be under and subject to The Civil Rights Acts. But these presumptions are rebuttable by all Good and Lawful Christians who do not look to these governments for their benefits, privileges and opportunities; and who do not deal in the realm of the law merchant.

Written and Compiled by John Joseph

Part Three:

Voter Registration and Idolatry

Last month we covered the change in the elections process brought on by Lincoln's War v. All Christian States. We displayed that voter registration is a war-time measure for those under the usurpations of the eversor Abraham Lincoln; and, its use today is evidence of the continuation of the War. The evidence presented previously points to an elections process unknown and foreign to the process which existed antebellum. This is highly important, because we can see some disturbing parallels with the fall of Rome, from a book by Woodrow Wilson:

"Civil war opened the doors to Caesar and the several triumvirates, and finally Rome [the United States of America] had her first emperor in Octavian [Lincoln]." Woodrow Wilson, The State--The Elements of Historical and Practical Politics, p. 124 [Insertion added.] and on page 121:
"209. An Emperor the Remedy. It turned out, in the slow process of revolution which the rule of the oligarchy brought upon the city, that the only means of accomplishing the administrative changes which yearly became more and more necessary was to concentrate power in the hands of one man, at first under the forms of the old constitution, at length in open disregard of those forms,--and this was the establishment of the Empire. By making all men subjects, it practically made all men citizens. It brought Rome, very soon to the level of the provinces; but it also brought the provinces to the level of Rome by giving her and them a common master who could unify administration and oversee it with an equal interest in the prosperity of all parts of a consolidated domain. That is what Caesar attempted, and that the overthrow of the Republic and the establishment of the Empire accomplished.....The Senate stood still, and many provincial officers were still formally elected by the people of the city; but the city became, scarcely less than the provinces, bound to perfect obedience to the emperor; provincial officers, and even city officers, were recognized as only his deputies; the Empire was unified and provincials brought to an equality with their former masters by a servitude common to all. Caracalla's act of universal enfranchisement whatever its immediate purpose (A.D. 212), was a logical outcome of the imperial system. All were citizens where all were subjects." Woodrow Wilson, The State--The Elements of Historical and Practical Politics, p. 121. [Emphasis added.]

Note the wording in the Presidential Proclamations, the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment and you will see that they address precisely the same subject-matter. From the days of Lincoln's War, and continuing through Reconstruction, then, the aim has been to concentrate the power in the states in one head located in Washington, and subject them to the fickle nature of natural man in the not so White House: Again, Woodrow Wilson:

"Of course there was and could be no concealment of the fact that predominance in the state had been given to one man [by military necessity]; by the traditions of the Republic furnished abundant sanction for the temporary investiture of one man with supreme authority: the dictatorship had been a quite normal office in the days of the Republic's best vigor. What was possible and prudent to conceal was, that one man had become permanent master and that republican institutions had been finally overthrown.All that was desired was accomplished by the use of regular republican forms. The framework of the old constitution was left standing; but new forces [never contemplated by the founders] were made to work within it." Woodrow Wilson, The State--The Elements of Historical and Practical Politics, pp. 124-125. [Emphasis and insertion added.]

Woodrow Wilson, we all know, was the notorious woodhead who carried forward the design of his predecessors when he signed the Income Tax Act of 1913 and Federal Reserve Act into "law."

When you look at the top of a "voter registration" form it specifically states who is the subject of the voting registration "laws"--those made subject under Lincoln's Proclamations of Emancipation of September 22, 1862 and January 1, 1863. This is the same subject matter of the "Civil Rights Acts," Thirteenth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifteenth Amendment, and the "Voting Rights Acts." It is the "duty" of every good "citizen" to "vote" to give "sanction" to a "government" never contemplated by the Founders. And this is the rule in international law derived from recognition:

"States not yet admitted to the family of nations may have all the attributes of states, in the sense of public law and from the point of view of political science, and yet lack international statehood. [Wilson Int. Law, 12.] Sovereignty becomes internationally effective only when recognized by other [*394] states. [The Maria Joseph, 16 F.Cas. No. 9,078, Brunn Coll. Cas. 500, 2 Wheel. Cr. (N.Y.) 600; U.S. v. Hutchings, 26 F.Cas.No. 15,429, Brunn Coll. Cas. 489, 2 Wheel. Cr. (N.Y.) 543.
"[a] It is optional on the part of any nation to grant or withhold recognition. 'Except in consequence of particular conventions, no state is obliged to accord it. But the refusal may give rise to measures of retorsion.' Per Marshall, C.J., in Rose v. Himely, 2 Cranch(U.S.) 241, 272, 2 L.Ed. 608; Clark v. U.S., 5 F.Cas.No. 2,838, 3 Wash.C.C. 101.] Recognition is the act which gives to a de facto state international status." 33 C.J. 393-394. The state we are referring to is your state.

Christian states are not required to give recognition to secular states. But if it does give recognition, this recognition is a mirror: One, it is recognition of the individuals who established a secular government completely disconnected and removed from its Christian foundation, by resurrecting the old Roman Imperial system of "law"; Two, it is you recognizing that you are subject to the group of men in the District of Columbia; Three, it is recognition that God, through His Son Jesus Christ, is not your Sovereign Lord and Saviour. Can you now see, that if you participate in such a scheme, you are a part of the problem? You are your own worst enemy! This is stated by the courts:

"The second section of the [13th] amendment was added out of abundant caution. It authorizes Congress to select, from time to time, the means that might be deemed appropriate to the end. It employs a phrase which had been enlightened by well-considered judicial application. Any exercise of legislative power within its limits involves a legislative, and not a judicial question." United States v. Rhodes (1866), 27 Fed. Cas. (Case No. 16,151) 785, 793.
"Amendments 13, 14, and 15 restrict the State, while a member of the federal Union, from changing her Constitutions so as to create or establish slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been convicted, from denying to a citizen [subject] of the United States or depriving him of those national rights, privileges, and immunities, which belong to him as such citizen [subject]; require the state to recognize as its citizen [subject] any citizen [subject] of the United States who is or becomes a bona fide resident therein; and requires the state to give to each citizen [subject] therein the same rights, privileges, and immunities secured by her Constitution and laws to her white citizens." Cory v. Carter (1874), 48 Ind. 327, 17 Am.Rep. 738, 3 Am.LawRec. 669. [Insertions added.]

The second section of the Thirteenth Amendment has the same wording used in the last section of all the postbellum amendments. By the admission above given, this is a political question, because legislation itself is political, not judicial. This is the concept of "separation of powers." The court then is telling you the issue to raise--a political issue, and not a judicial issue. The issue must be the Religion of the King, because this is always a political question.

"A gross exception, however, to the principle of the division between ecclesiastical and secular jurisdictions was contained in the law applicable to heretics. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, heresy, which previously had been only a spiritual offense, punishable by anathema, became also a legal offense, punishable as treason. The inquisitional procedure was used for the first time to expose it, and the death penalty was for the first time made applicable to it. The gist of the offense was dissent [disobedience] from the dogmas [Law] of the church [state, sacra publica]." Berman, Law and Revolution, pp. 185-186. [Emphasis and insertions added.]
"Treason in levying war, by this definition, consists of two sorts. First, marching expressly, or directly against the king's forces: secondly, interpretatively, or obstructively; doing a thing of a general nature. If to pull down a particular inclosure, it is only a riot; but if to pull down all inclosures, it is levying war against the king, because it is generally against the king's laws. Insurrections, in order to throw down all inclosures, to alter the established law or change religion, to enhance the price of all labour or to open all prisons--all risings, in order to effect these innovations, of a public and general concern by an armed force, are, in construction of law, high treason, within the clause of levying war; for though they are not levelled at the person of the king, they are against his royal majesty, [*877] and besides, they have a direct tendency to dissolve all the bands of society, and so destroy all property and all government too, by numbers and an armed force." Case of Fries (1799), 9 Fed. Cas. 826, 877. [Emphasis added. Religion is a political issue.]

And this political question cannot be raised at the instance of one who avails himself of the benefit of using the ballot box of the conquering earthly power:

"The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation [Secular humanists can never claim injury by the law which is a part of their religion and they themselves adore]. Tyler v. The Judges, 179 U.S. 405; Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 625.
Among the many applications of this rule, none is more striking than the denial of the right of challenge to one who lacks a personal or property right [Secular humanists have no property right in common with Good and Lawful Christians in any public property, i.e., Christian civil government]. Thus, the challenge by a public official interested only in the performance of his official duty will not be entertained. Columbus & Greenville Ry. Co. v. Miller, 283 U.S. 96, 99-100.

In Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, the Court affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by a citizen who sought to have the Nineteenth Amendment declared unconstitutional. In Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, the challenge of the federal Maternity Act was not entertained although made by the Commonwealth on behalf of all its citizens [subjects].

"The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits." Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581; Wall v. Parrot Silver and Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407, 411-412; St. Louis Malleable Casting Co. v. Prendergast Construction Co., 260 U.S. 469." Ashwander v. T.V.A. (1936), 297 U.S. 288, 346, 56 S.Ct. 466 482, 80 L.Ed. 688. [Emphasis and insertions added.]

But isn't it possible to reform the system from within? The court in Ashwander is telling you that it is an impossibility!

And so did Christ:

"And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? And then he will spoil his house." Mt 12:25-29.

And because the law doesn't compel impossibilities, it is not their responsibility to "reform the system" from within. It is yours--using the Power and Authority of God's Word written in Scripture, "For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." Rom 13:1. The Scripture never said, "The rulers or persons that be are ordained of God." Thus, we may safely assert the following:

"And if we attend to the nature of the argument with which the apostle here enforces the duty of submission to the higher powers, we shall find it to such an one, as concludes not in favour of submission to all who bear the title of rulers, in common; but only, to those who actually perform the duty of rulers, by exercising a reasonable and just authority, for the good of human society. This is a point which it will be proper to enlarge upon; because the question before us turns very much upon the truth or falsehood of this position. It is obvious, then, in general, that the civil ruler whom the apostle here speaks of, and obedience to whom he presses upon Christians as a duty, are good rulers, such as are in the exercise of their office and power, benefactors to society. Such they are described to be, throughout this passage. Thus it is said, that they are not a terror to good works, but to the evil; and that they attend continually upon this very thing. St. Peter gives the same account of rulers: They are for a praise to them that do well, and the punishment of evil doers. It is manifest that this character and the description of rulers, agrees only to such as are rulers in fact, as well as in name: to such as govern well, and act agreeably to their office. And the apostle's argument for submission to rulers, is wholly built and grounded upon a presumption that they do in fact answer this character; and is of no force at all upon the supposition of the contrary." Rev. Jonathan Mayhew, 1750. [Emphasis added.]

I wish to note here that "the secret ballot" is the tool of all military governments to maintain control and management of "civil affairs." It follows, as a consequence, that the traditional relationship between the civil power and the military power is reversed. See 12 Op.Atty.Gen. 182 (1867). It is an import from Australia and did not arrive in California until circa 1890's. I don't know if or when the federal government adopted it.

"AUSTRALIAN BALLOT. A system of secret voting, whereby the voter indicates his choice of the candidates who have been nominated by a mark alongside the name of the candidate thus chosen. The system originated in Australia, whence its name." Radin, Law Dictionary (1955), p. 27. [Emphasis added.]

If you are tired of being your own worst enemy and short term "solutions," get out of the political stupor and teach your infants to do the same:

"Let virtue, honor, the love of liberty and of science be, and remain, the soul of this constitution, and it will become the source of great and extensive happiness to this and future generations. Vice, ignorance, and want of vigilance, will be the only enemies able to destroy it. Against these provide, and, of these, be forever jealous. Every member of the state, ought diligently to read and study the constitution of his country, and teach the rising generation to be free [under God]. [Ed note: This is why we promote you bringing your infants to seminars!] By knowing their rights, they will sooner perceive them when they are violated, and be the better prepared to defend and assert them." John Jay, on the inauguration of the New York Constitution of 1777, quoted in the Principles and Acts of the Revolution (1822), edited by H. Niles. [Emphasis and insertion added.]

But, please read the constitutions with the proper Christian perspective:

"What is a constitution, and what are its objects? It is easier to tell what it is not than what it is. It is not the beginning of a community, nor the origin of private rights; it is not the fountain of law, nor the incipient state of government; it is not the cause, but consequence, of personal freedom and political freedom; it grants no rights to the people, but is the creature of their power, the instrument of their convenience. Designed for their protection in the enjoyment of the rights and powers which they possessed before the constitution was made, it is but the framework of the political government, and necessarily based upon the pre-existing condition of laws [Scripture], rights [jus ex non scripto], habits [customs and usages], and modes of thought [See Philippians 2:2]. There is nothing primitive [mysterious] in it: it is all derived from a known source [Scripture]. It presupposes an organized [Christian] society, [Scriptural] law, order, property [stewardship], personal freedom [Christian Liberty], a love of political liberty, and enough of cultivated intelligence to know how to guard it against the encroachments of tyranny [which we have lost in this present age]. A written constitution is in every instance a limitation upon the powers of government in the hands of agents; for there never was a written republican constitution which delegated to functionaries all the latent powers which lie dormant in every nation, and are boundless in extent, and incapable of definition." Hamilton v. St. Louis County Court, 15 Mo. 13. [Insertions added.]

In other words, do not look to the constitution as a source of supply for any thing; for Christians, God, through our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, is our sole Source and Supplier. The other perspective is idolatry, which is what the current "political" system lives, feeds and is dependent upon. Christ is our example:

"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; and saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." Mt 4:8-10. [Emphasis added.]

Idolatry is an injury not only to God, but is loss to the idolater, for he must relinquish his relationship with God, and go beneath the status he enjoys with God, through Our Sovereign Lord Jesus Christ:

"BAAL. (Heb.)--lord; master; possessor; owner; guardian; a husband; Jove; Jupiter; the sun.a generic term for god in may of the Syro-Arabian languages.
"Chief male deity of the Phoenicians and Canaanites, as Ashtoreth was their principal female deity (Judg. 2:13). The worship of Baal was directed to Jovis, Jupiter, or the Sun as the guardian and giver of good fortune, prosperity, and abundance.
"Meta. Baal means lord, and it was the besetting sin of the ancient Hebrews to apply this title to things formed instead of the formless. This tendency is still prevalent, and not merely among the Hebrews.
"All concepts of God as less than universal mind are Baal. Those who believe in a personal god are Baal worshippers, because they make an image of that which is 'without body, parts, or passions.' They should learn to go back of the realm of things, that they may come in touch with God, who is Spirit, mind, cause, omnipresence.
"Baal worship was a form of nature worship. All people who study materiality and seek to find in it the source of existence are sacrificing to Baal. This is strictly intellectual. But there are those on the soul plane who think that they are spiritual because they feel the throb of nature and join in all her moods. They are closely allied to the whirling dervish, and dissipate their soul substance in the various forces of nature with which they are in love. Such persons must do away with this Baal worship and call upon the life-fire of the Spirit to consume every material phase of sacrifice.
"Baalim and Asheroth represent nature in its various sensuous aspects. 'All the host of heaven (see Deut. 4:19 and 17:3) are the sun, moon, and stars and the twelve signs of the zodiac. When we fall into the evils of Manasseh (II Chron. 33:1-13) we think that the planets and stars rule over us and that it is necessary to pay them a certain degree of homage or worship because of their influence. Some people in this day have great faith in their 'ruling planets,' and think that they are bound to certain traits of character because they were born when those sidereal bodies were in the ascendancy. They are forgetful of the God power within them, and so are brought into condemnation.
"The Manasseh mentality usually goes from one step of Baalim worship to another, until it exhausts them all. Luck, chance, sorcery, familiar spirits, and wizardry are some of the avenues through which the Manasseh mind attempts to regulate its life. Astrology, palmistry, the guidance of spirits, mesmerism, hypnotism, are some of the many modern forms of denial of God. Indulged in for a time they lead the negative mind into deeper and deeper bondage, until the transgressed law reacts upon the transgressor and he is put 'in chains' and bound 'with fetters' and carried away to Babylon, or utter confusion. The way of escape is through prayer to God and return to His 'city of peace' within the soul, Jerusalem." Metaphysical Bible Dictionary (1955), p. 87.
"BAALAH. (Heb.)--lady; mistress; possessor; guardian; sorceress; citizenship; a citizen.
"A border town of Judah. Kiriath-jearim is another name for this city (Josh. 15:9).
"Meta. An innate consciousness of authority and ownership in man, a consciousness that pertains to the feminine or affectional nature, the soul (mistress, possessor), and is expressed in the psychic and material to the point of idolatry." Metaphysical Bible Dictionary (1955), p. 87.

Currently, then, it is established that if you participate in any current "elections," you are engaged in the practice of idolatry, which marks the end of this age, and the beginning of the next.

And this is the reason We tell you to cancel your current "voter registration." If you want a Christian Jural Society, it is impossible to walk with Christ and the foe of Christ at the same time. As David says, "Do not I hate them that hate thee? and am I not grieved with those that rise against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies." Ps 139:21-22. The "voter registration" is an idea from natural theology: secular man's faulty reason dictating that he, in and of himself can save all, "if you just give him enough power, more money, more..., more..., and still more....Never mind Christ's fully finished work." A source on this may suffice:

"So far as the latter (natural theology) is concerned, in the teachings of Luther and Calvin, it is reduce to a doctrine of paganism, that is, a doctrine of the permanent perversion of the truth given to man in the revelation in Creation. But both Luther and Calvin regard this idolatry as a proof of the fact of the revelation in the Creation. 'Idolatris praecipue manifesta (fuit) notitia Dei.'...the very fact of idolatry...shows that the heathen received a knowledge of God." Brunner, Revelation and Reason (1946), p. 60.

May God Bless You. 'Til next month.

Common Right vs. Franchise

This article is written for those who have been refused publication of their public notices by a newspaper or have been denied general delivery mail, and for other purposes. This is to help you understand the differences between state franchise and the common Rights vested by God in all Good and Lawful Christians.

A common Right vests only in Good and Lawful Christians because: One, they alone discern the Revealed Law in Scripture and are vested in Genesis 1:27-29, 2:15-17; Two, they have the "mind of Christ," which no corporation, trust, company, natural person, or human being possesses; Three, they are Sealed by and with the Authority of the Holy Spirit because they are made in the image and likeness of God, which has never been vested in any strangers of God's Law; Four, they live within the Kingdom of their Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, whose Law is recognized Supreme the world over. There is no right vested by Almighty God in and for a newspaper or The Postal Service to exist, so it exists only by franchise (license or permission) from the Power vested in Good and Lawful Christians by Almighty God through Jesus Christ. All franchises are privileges under the control of the grantor; and, impose duties and obligations upon the grantee, the newspaper:

"Any definition of the word 'franchise' must include the word 'privileges.'" Willamette Woolen Mfg. Co. v. Bank of British Columbia, Or., 119 U. S. 191. (Italics added.)
"A franchise is bi-lateral in nature and imposes obligations [duties] while conferring rights [privileges], so that acceptance is necessary to prove that grantee has undertaken those obligations." Greenberg v. City of New York, 274 N.Y.S. 4. (Insertions added.)
"A franchise is a privilege in which the public have an interest, and which cannot be exercised without the authority of the sovereign." People v. Utica Insurance Co. (1818), 15 Johns. 358.

The vesting by license is independent of the common Right held by Good and Lawful Christians, however; and is therefore of a different and inferior status:

"What is a franchise? Under English law, Blackstone defines it as 'a royal privilege or a branch of the King's prerogative, subsisting in the hands of a subject.'" State of California v. Central Pacific R. R. Co. (1888), 8 S. C. 1073, 1080. [Emphasis added.]

The Law recognizes a "vested right" being fixed for present or future enjoyment through its Lawful exercise, based upon the discretion of Almighty God directing the affairs of Good and Lawful Christians:

"A vested right is an immediate fixed right of present or future enjoyment." Marshall v. King, 24 Miss. (2 Cushm.) 85.

No statute can constitutionally impair the Lawful exercise of a right vested by Almighty God in Good and Lawful Christians, who alone compose the Body of Christ, His church:

"No statute can constitutionally derogate a vested right." Billings v. Hall (1857), 7 Cal. 1.

Therefore, All Good and Lawful Christians have a vested right in all res communis, of which all franchises granted by or under their Authority exercising the Prerogative vested in Them, and are a species thereof:

"The power to grant a franchise is political in its nature. In England, these grants emanate from the crown; in this country, the [Good and Lawful Christian] people are the source of power, and represent, in that respect, the crown. The power belongs to the Legislature, [as their agent]" Chard v. Harrison (1857) 7 Cal. 113, 116.
"The inhabitants of the city of New York have a vested right [incorporeal property right] in the city hall, markets, water works, ferries, and other public property, which cannot be taken from them, any more than their individual dwellings, or store-houses. Their rights, in this respect, rest not merely upon the constitution, but the great principles of Eternal Justice, which lie at the foundation of all free governments." Benson v. The Mayor & c. of New York (1850), 10 Barb. 223, 244-245.
"PREROGATIVE. In Civil Law. The privilege, pre-eminence, or advantage which one person has over another: thus, a person vested with an office is entitled to all the rights, privileges, prerogatives, etc., which belong to it.
"In English Law. The word simply means a power or will which is discretionary, and above and uncontrolled by any other will. It is frequently used to express the uncontrolled will of a sovereign power in the state and is applied not only to the king [the People], but also to the legislative and judicial branches of the government.
'The prerogative is the name for the remaining portion of the crown's [the People'] original authority, and is therefore the name for the discretionary power left at any moment in the hands of the crown [the Good and Lawful Christian people], whether such power be, in fact, exercised by the king himself [the People themselves] or by his ministers. Every act which the executive government can lawfully do without the authority of an act of parliament is done by virtue of this prerogative.' Dicey, Constitution 369; when a franchise is attached to the crown, it is a prerogative; when granted to a subject, it is a franchise; [1903] 2 Ch. 598.
"It is sometimes applied by law writers to the thing over which the power or will is exercised, as fiscal prerogatives, meaning the king's revenues; 1 Halleck, Int. L. 147." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 2670.

All franchises then, are political in nature, and for the newspaper or The Postal Service to violate the Sovereign's Prerogative by its failure to adhere to the terms and conditions of its license to exist, is criminal because it violates the jus publicum in this state, by its nonfeasance:

"Nonfeasance
"Although it was once said that 'a corporation is not indictable, but the particular members of it are,' [Anon., 12 Mod. 559.] it is now well settled that a corporation may be indicted for omission [*83] to perform a public duty imposed upon it by law. [Reg. v. Birmingham & G. Ry. Co., 3 Q.B. 223; New York & G. L. R. Co. v. State, 50 N.J.Law 303, 13 Atl. 1, affirmed in 53 N.J.Law, 244, 23 Atl. 168. Contra, in New York, People v. Equitable Gas-Light Co., (Gen. Sess.) 5 N.Y.Supp. 19.] While it cannot be imprisoned, it may, if punishment is provided for, be fined, and deprived of its charter and franchises. Thus a railway company may be indicted for neglect to keep in repair a bridge across a cut made by it, when its road crosses a public highway, so that travel is obstructed. [New York & G. L. R. Co. v. State, supra.]" Clark' Criminal Law (1915), pp. 82-83.

The sole purpose of The Post Office Department in the hands of The Postal Service is the preservation of general delivery for the church and the sole purpose of a newspaper is to publish all matters affecting the church, because "Causae ecclesiae publicis causis aequiparantur--The cause of the Church is a public cause." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2127.

The privilege of the newspaper to exist is without standing in the court:

"Privilegium non valet contra rempublicam--A privilege avails not against the commonwealth." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2155.

And this applies to the "attorney" of the newspaper, because he needs license from you to practice in your court under God! This is all the more important, because the agent cannot exercise a greater authority than his principal has. Therefore, if his principal is under license from the Good and Lawful Christian people, the attorney himself is under the same disabilities, whatever those disabilities may be.

Let This Mind Be In You

Part Four

We now come to the last part of this series on the application of presuppositional analysis to the problem of defining the nature, attributes, and characteristics of civil government. We began with an overview that looked at several areas of life, generally, then narrowed the focus to the ideas of civil government and Law, and we saw that only on Christian presuppositions is true and Lawful civil government possible.

Conclusion

Conversely, all attempts at civil government on Humanistic presuppositions are doomed to failure, and that such systems rely totally on commerce and a massive military machine, which has been true of ancient kingdoms, of Rome, and of modern America and the Western world.

Humanistic systems of civil government are predestined to self-contradiction, self-refutation, and self-destruction. When Mercury and Mars are the gods of civil government and such a government is given enough time, the outcome is a foregone conclusion. This has been the course of history for over four thousand years.

Ironically, Humanism recognizes its own short-comings and the superiority of God's Law, which is why Christian Law today, is still the only real, supreme Law of the Land.

Thus, we find in "Corpus Juris," 59 C.J. 20, under 'States,' sub-heading [g] Extent of sovereign characteristics of state, where it speaks of the American system - "The state is a sovereign having no derivative powers, exercising its sovereignty by divine right. It has bound itself by compact with the other sovereign states not to exercise certain of its sovereign rights, and has conceded these to the Union, but in every other respect it retains all its sovereignty." Lowenstein v. Evans, 69 F. 908, 911. 59 C.J. 20.

The 'state' here is distinguished from the State, and STATE, or State of, etc., or, as in the above example, 'the Union.' All of which are organized, specific forms of civil government. The state (lower case spelling) is entirely general and refers to a large group of people within the total population, but not all the people.

"By the word State (capitalized) is meant one of the States of the American Union. Spelled otherwise, it refers to political societies or states in general." Robinson's Elementary Law (1882), note, p. xxxiv [insert added], which is consistent with the rules of English usage, as well.
"In the sense of the constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government, the term 'state' is used to express the idea of a people or political community, as distinguished from the government;" and, "The [Good and Lawful Christian] people, in whatever territory dwelling, either temporarily or permanently, and whether organized under a regular government, or united by looser and less definite relations, constitute the state." Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700. Bouvier s Law Dictionary (1914), State, p. 3124. [the State, and state are not the same, insertions added.] "It may mean an organized political community." Silver Bow County v. Davis, 6 Mont. 306, 12 P. 688, 690, aff d. 139 U.S. 438, 11 S.Ct. 594, 35 L.Ed. 210. 59 C.J 18.

Since Christianity is the presumed basis of real Law in this country by the Supreme Court of the United States, by the Federal, State, and County governments, both before and since Lincoln's War Against Christian States, its recognition also applies to the law and international relations of the current governments, and "until such recognition it has been said that the courts must assume that the former government continues without change." 33 Corpus Juris, 394, under the heading "International Law."

In other words, the existence of Christianity and the Christian state (a body of people distinct from the State) is recognized by international and municipal law. This explains why Non-statutory Abatements work if properly written and served by Good and Lawful Christian People.

Further, the Christian people (state) are cloaked with sovereignty as in a divine right from God by virtue of the fact that God has written His Law on their hearts. Where ever the Christian goes, he carries all his rights, privileges, and immunities, from God and always retains the Perfect Law of Liberty to exercise them at every moment he is called upon to do so, as the Holy Spirit and Scripture leads.

It is this fact that gives the Christian authority to re-establish Christian civil government, i.e., Christian Jural Societies, in order that we can begin again to execute the testament of Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ who gave us such authority in the Dominion Mandate (Genesis 1:28) and in the Great Commission, which is sealed by the Holy Spirit until the Day of Redemption and the Lord has returned for His Bride.

In other words, a Christian already has all the power and authority needed to do the job he has been called to do in a de jure sense. It is time for the de jure state to become the de facto Christian State.

There are, however, many nay-sayers in the Christian camp. Some say there are not enough Christians who obey God's Law to restore and reconstruct the Christian State, i.e., turn the state into a State. But, in law, numbers and resources mean nothing. "The equality of states is an incident of sovereignty; for, if one is in right subject to another, the former is not sovereign. But equality in this sense means "equality before the law," and not in strength, resources, and influence." "Nor does it require equal voting power in world affairs, for differences of international value are obvious." See Corpus Juris, 33 C.J. 397, Section 18, 2. 'Equality.'

This point is made forcibly in Scripture. Gideon did not need numbers for his great battle?

Others argue that we do not have the recognition of existing governments, but the above cites say that 'recognition' is not important. Does this mean that because Humanists recognize us that we must also recognize them? Of course not!

Recall that in the earlier parts we stated that the ultimate presuppositions behind Christianity and Humanism are 'mutually exclusive ultimates,' and that as such, each must deny the other's validity. To recognize the opponent's right, is to give legitimacy to the opponent that he has no right to. This we must not do or else we will suffer the judgments of God for compromising His Law.

This is also why we do not acknowledge the knock on the door by a stranger who may be from the opposition. To answer the door is to recognize the opposition, and concede jurisdiction to them to try us in their courts.

You can argue all day that you are a sovereign, and it will do you no good, because your actions betray your words. By your fruits are you known, even by the enemy. Remember how often Scripture tells us that Christ knows His sheep. To open the door is to say that the enemy is Our shepherd, not Christ.

To have a driver's license or social security card or any other token of a benefit, privilege, immunity, or opportunity from the opposition contradicts and nullifies the Christian witness. The reason is, the name on all such instruments, being a nom de guerre, is a fiction. Such is certainly not a Christian name or appellation. You may profess to be a Christian all day long, but the evidence of your actions, the bitter fruit in your billfold or purse, says that you're not a Christian, but a Humanist looking to the State for approval.

The same is true of the number on your house, your Post Office Box number, the VIN and Registration numbers on your car, the parcel number on your house and land, and so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. The use of such numbers and fictitious designations has destroyed the power of the Christian church in America.

Look at any church on any block in your home town. Perhaps, even on your own church you will see the name of the church in all capital letters, which designates a 501(c)3 commercial corporation, that is advertising for business.

But, you say, "I still haven't accepted the mark of the beast on my wrist or forehead!" Hogwash!!! Can you buy or sell without the numbers and fictitious names, add or remove anything from 'your home' without a permit number, conduct any transaction without an account number, send your child to a public school without a Social Security number, get your plumbing, electrical wiring, or TV fixed, or do even the most mundane thing, without it all being numbered and tracked commercially? The answer is obviously, No!!!

What is worse, most Christians don't know there is another way to do things.

Some of you may panic because you've been told by your commercial church leaders not to accept the mark or you won't go to heaven. Think for moment! You've already accepted a mark without which you cannot buy or sell anything! Do you really need a mark on your wrist or forehead when you have already volunteered to carry one in your own pocket??? No one forced you to take it. You volunteered for it, because the same commercial church leaders you've always listened to told you to obey all authorities and both you and they thought that meant obeying even ungodly laws, codes, ordinances, rules, and regulations.

Is this the attitude of Christ who did His Father's will even when it contradicted the laws of the Jews and Romans and sent Him to the Cross? Does this idea fit with the Scripture when it tells us to 'seek first the Kingdom of Heaven?'

Yes, there will be many nay-sayers who don't want to rock the boat. So be it: let the dead bury the dead.

But, there are some, including those in The King's Men, who believe that we are on the verge of a new advance of the Christian church, that we are on the verge of a new reformation and reconstruction.

Thus, as a fitting end to this series, we will close with a short dissertation on the general nature and characteristics of the new era of Christian dominion that is to come. After all, "Where there is no vision, the people perish."

From the theoretical standpoint, the course of history is interpreted by Humanists as cyclical. But, from the Christian standpoint, history may appear to be cyclical if Our understanding cannot get beyond the mere form of history and see the deeper and more subtle meaning that is available only to the mind and heart of one guided by the Holy Spirit.

The form may appear to repeat itself because Humanist thinking is itself repetitive, in the sense that it vacillates from one apparently polar opposite to another and then swings back again. We say apparently polar opposite because in fact, the pendulum swing in Humanist thought is not really from one pole to its opposite. There can be no polarization in Humanist thought because the Humanist leaves out of his view of reality the Christian idea and interpretation. Again, the mutually exclusive ultimate arises.

At any rate, if we begin with the Garden of Eden, we can see how we began with a perfect world, then fell into total depravity, which gradually became more and more extreme until God destroyed the world by the Great Flood of Genesis. Since the Flood, we have seen a major reformation or reconstruction in the work of Moses, Ezra, Christ, and the Great Reformation that began with Wycliffe and eventually gave birth to this nation.

Each of these reformations brought with them eras in which more men and women came to a knowledge of God and Christ. Each was marked by advancements in all areas of life. Thus, from the crude systems of commercial dictatorship before Christ (except for the Hebrew Republic) we now have the simple and profound forms of local self-government by the Christian Man, such as The Hundreds of England. In art, we have progressed from stone carvings to film and television. In communications we have gone from clay tablets to the personal computer. From cutting holes in a man's head to relieve headaches or demons we have come to the aspirin.

And, man is beginning to live longer as he once did before the Flood. Fewer women and babies die in childbirth. The ability to cover vast distances in a short period of time is staggering. Man's inventions are becoming more sophisticated by day. And, his potential for good or evil has grown by leaps and bounds.

The point is, each reformation has brought with it incredible advances in man's knowledge and understanding but, the reformation is not self-sustaining, and usually within three or four generations, the reformation dies. What was once inspired and led by advances in Christian thought begins to wane when the Christian does not keep pace with the developments of ideas and their consequences that the Christian himself gave to man as he tried to bring more and more of the Word of God to bear on the world about him.

Herman Dooyeweerd, a Dutch philosopher described this phenomena as a kind of convergence and divergence of ideas.

What he meant was, man may start in the Garden of Eden, but after a while, his ideas begin to diverge into implications or consequences that he never saw in his original vision. This period of divergence we would call the declining phase of Christian thought. As ideas become more diversified the original Christian motive behind them is lost and the advances spawned in Christianity, are soon taken over, or co-opted by the Humanist, who promptly begins to re-interpret them according to the god of Humanism, autonomous reason.

Eventually, the decline reaches a point at which, even to Christians, the situation is so bad that something must be done. This factor drives the Christian back to Scripture and his knees. The Humanist has now become the rod that drives the lazy Christian forward and compels him to re-think his position. In the plan of God, the Humanist has always been God's rod to wake the sleeping Christian and get him back on course.

In very simple terms, when the pain level gets high enough, the Spirit of God begins to move in the hearts and minds of Christians, the process of convergence begins, and a new reformation is born.

Convergence is a process in which man does a complete re-thinking of his ideas either generally, or specifically. It begins in the heart and then becomes conscious in the mind, sometimes slowly, and sometimes quickly. The process does not usually come upon all the people at once, but gradually. It begins with a few people, called of God and gifted by the Holy Spirit in such a way that they can read the real implications of an idea and not the pretended ones. That is, they see through the smoke and mirrors.

Gradually, a new understanding of things begins to come upon the Christian, at first in only a few areas of life, then later, more and more of a man's ideas are re-thought in terms of the new vision of things that is emerging in his heart and mind.

At some point in the process, the Christian Man must put his new found truth in Scripture to work. He cannot help himself for he is the tool or agent of God. He may become one of the new shock troops in God's plan, or a general of the army, a behind-the-scenes strategist and planner, or fill a whole range of other needs in God's plan.

Over time, an army of these reformed men and women is formed. At first, they may be unaware that there are others who think the same way they do. Eventually, however, the Spirit of God brings them together and an organization is formed and the task of bringing together new minds and hearts to the fight, begins. What was once fragmented and disjointed, now becomes an organized movement on the march, at first in an almost underground sense and later, it becomes a phenomena which catches the attention of the powers that be.

If the Humanist powers detect this new movement, they may attempt a variety of tactics to deal with it, that range from outright persecution, to subversion. No matter, because what God has started, no power on earth can stop. Eventually, as more and more Christians join the struggle, the balance of power begins to shift. Like a rain storm that begins with only a few drops in the dry dust, it becomes a raging flood that washes away all that stands in its way. And when the flood subsides, the new top soil brings forth sweet fruit and the land becomes green with righteousness and prosperity.

Before you know it, a new power is in control and Christians are once again advancing on every front until at last, the Humanist realizes that its time to retreat and go underground.

The reformation will then solidify its power and re-chart a new course for the nation that will bring many new advances and developments just as in previous reformations and just at the point where the Christian gets comfortable with the way things are, the process of divergence sets in again.

For those who wonder why we must go through the process of reformation and decline, or convergence and divergence of ideas, the only answer we can give is; "... so that no man should boast..."

As to where we are now in the next reformation, it is Our belief that we are somewhere in that period where the army is being formed. Networking and organization is taking place in more and more areas every day. We are not yet an army, for we are still in training, in basic training or boot camp, if you will. As the pain level rises, more and more Christian men and women are volunteering to join what is by now, a nation-wide movement.

The Humanists know we are out here and that Our numbers are growing. They also know that their own system is in major trouble. It doesn't take a genius to see that when the I.R.S. begins to offer discounts for advance payment of income taxes that there is a problem. It does not take a Harvard Business School graduate to see that when foreclosures and bankruptcies begin to accelerate across the nation the entire economy is undermined. Foreclosures and bankruptcies in Los Angeles County alone, in 1996, reached nearly 5,000 a month (up 64% from 1995) and this number is climbing at an unbelievable rate. Nationwide, this means more than 600,00 bankruptcies and foreclosures a year!!!

In the last five years, the Federal budget has been cut more than in any previous period in history, not because of the genius of the President, but because he and the Congress have no choice in the matter. It is safe to say that such cuts will become more drastic in size at an accelerated pace over the next decade.

Scandal is running rampant in the Federal and State governments because the politicians and their cronies are being forced to more and more drastic means to raise campaign funds, while at the same time, key members of the President's Cabinet and members of the House and Senate, are abandoning ship.

Anyone with the eyes to see and the ears to hear knows about the hand-writing on the wall. The problem is, those in power are not gifted with the ability to translate it.

All this is merely the prelude, the birth pangs, of a new era and these events are typical of all previous reformations. Yes, for those in the Christian law reform movement things are still very tough and there are many questions we have yet to answer, but each and every day we are making progress as we bring more and more of Our thought captive to the mind of Christ.

We may not live to see the fruit of what we do here and what you, Our readers are doing every hour of their lives, but Our posterity will. When things get tough, its time to toughen up the knees and burn the midnight oil and this is happening now, even as this is written at 4:12 a.m. on a Saturday morning. Our reward may not come in Our lifetimes, but, no matter; for We have a greater reward coming in Heaven, when at last, we may sit down and take Our rest in the enjoyment of the Lord and His Presence forever.

And, let us hope, that the generations after Us will be able to speak of Us even as We have spoken of the Founding Fathers.

"And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of the paths to dwell in." Isaiah 58:12.

The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men

A Sermon by John Witherspoon

(continued from Issue the Fourteenth)

Part Two of Three

3. The wrath of man praiseth God, as he sets bounds to it, or restrains it by his [21] providence, and sometimes makes it evidently a means of promoting and illustrating his glory.

There is no part of divine providence in which a greater beauty and majesty appears, than when the Almighty Ruler turns the councils of wicked men into confusion, and makes them militate against themselves. If the psalmist may be thought to have had a view in this text to the truths illustrated in the two former observations, there is no doubt at all that he had a particular view to this, as he says in the latter part of the verse, the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain. The scripture abounds with instances in which the designs of oppressors were either wholly disappointed, or in execution fell far short of the malice of their intention, and in some they turned out to the honour and happiness of the persons or the people, whom they were intended to destroy. We have an instance of the first of these in the history to which my text relates{10}. We have also an instance [22] in Esther, in which most mischievous designs of Haman, the son of Hamedatha the Agagite against Mordecai the Jew, and the nation from which he sprung, turned out at last to his own destruction, the honour of Mordecai and the salvation and peace of his people.

From the New Testament I will make choice of that memorable event on which the salvation of believers in every age rests as its foundation, the death and sufferings of the Son of God. This the great adversary and all his agents and instruments prosecuted with unrelenting rage. When they had blackened him with slander, when they scourged him with shame, when they had condemned him in judgment, and nailed him to the cross, how could they help esteeming the victory complete? But, of the unsearchable wisdom of God! they were but perfecting the great design laid for the salvation of sinners. Our blessed Redeemer by his death finished his work, overcame principalities and powers, and made a shew of them openly, triumphing [23] over them in the cross. With how much justice do the apostles and their company offer this doxology to God. They lift up their voice with one accord, and said, Lord thou art God which hast made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the Heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things. The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth, against thy hold Child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. {11}

In all after ages in conformity to this, the deepest laid contrivances of the prince of darkness, have turned out to the confusion of their author; and I know not, but considering his malice and pride, his perpetual disappointment, and the superiority of divine wisdom, may be one great source of suffering and torment. The cross hath still been the banner of truth, under which it hath been carried throughout the world. Persecution has been but as the furnace to the gold to purge it of its dross, to manifest its purity, and increase its lustre. It was taken notice of very early, that the blood of the martyrs was the seed of Christianity; the more abundantly it was shed, the more plentifully did the harvest grow.

So certain has this appeared, that the most violent infidels, both of early and later ages, have endeavoured to account for it, and have observed that there is a spirit of obstinacy in man which inclines him to resist violence, and that severity doth but increase opposition, be the cause what it will. They suppose that persecution is equally proper to propagate truth and error. This tho in part true will by no means generally hold. Such an apprehension however gave occasion to a glorious triumph of divine providence of an opposite kind, which I must shortly relate to you. One of the Roman emperors, Julian, surnamed the [24] apostate, perceiving how impossible it was to suppress the gospel by violence, endeavoured to extinguish it by neglect and scorn. He left the Christians unmolested for sometime, but gave all manner of encouragement to those of opposite principles, and particularly to the Jews, out of hatred to the Christians; and that he might bring public disgrace upon the Galileans, as he affected to stile them, he encouraged the Jews to rebuild the temple of Jerusalem, and visibly refute the prophecy of Christ, that it should lye under perpetual desolation. But this profane attempt was so signally frustrated, that it served as much as any one circumstance to spread the glory of our redeemer, and establish the faith of his saints. It is affirmed by some ancient authors, particularly by Ammianus Marcellinus a Heathen historian, that fire came out of the earth and consumed the workmen when laying the foundation. But in whatever way it was prevented, it is beyond all controversy, from the concurring testimony of Heathens and Christians, that little or no progress was ever made in it, and that in a short time, it was entirely defeated. [26]

It is proper here to observe that at the time of the reformation, when religion began to revive, nothing contributed more to facilitate its reception, and increase its progress than the violence of its persecutors. Their cruelty and the patience of the sufferers, naturally disposed men to examine and weigh the cause to which they adhered with so much constancy and resolution. At the same time also, when they were persecuted in one city they fled to another, and carried the discoveries of the popish fraud to every part of the world. It was by fame of those who were persecuted in Germany, that the light of this reformation was brought so early into Britain.

The power of divine providence appears with the most distinguished lustre, when small and inconsiderable circumstances and sometimes, the weather and seasons have defeated the most formidable armaments, and frustrated the best concerted expeditions. Near two hundred years ago, the monarchy of Spain was in the height of its power and glory, and determined to crush the interest of the [27] reformation. They sent out a powerful armament against Britain, giving it ostentatiously, and in my opinion profanely, the name of the Invincible Armada. But it pleased God so entirely to discomfit it by tempests, that a small part of it returned home, though no British force had been opposed to it at all.

We have a remarkable instance of the influence of small circumstances in providence in the English history. The two most remarkable persons in the civil wars, had earnestly desired to withdraw themselves from the contentions of the times, Mr. Hampden and Oliver Cromwell. They had actually taken their passage in a ship for New-England, when by an arbitrary order of council they were compelled to remain at home. The consequence of this was, that one of them was the soul of the republican opposition to monarchical usurpation during the civil wars, and the other in the course of that contest, was the great instrument in bringing the tyrant to the block.[28]

The only other historical remark I am to make is, that the violent persecution which many eminent Christians met with in England from their brethren, who called themselves Protestants, drove them in great numbers to a distant part of the world, where the light of the gospel and true religion were unknown. Some of the American settlements, particularly those in New-England, were chiefly made by them; and as they carried the knowledge of Christ to the dark places of the earth, so they continue themselves in as great a degree of purity of faith, and strictness of practice, or rather a greater than is to be found in any protestant church now in the world. Does not the wrath of man in this instance praise God? Was not the accuser of the brethren, who stirs up their enemies, thus taken in his own craftiness, and his kingdom shaken by the very means which he employed to establish it.{12} [29]

II. I proceed now to the second general head, which was to apply the principles illustrated above to our present situation, by inferences of truth for your instruction and comfort, and by suitable exhortations to duty in this important crisis.

And,

In the first place, I would take the opportunity on this occasion and from this subject to press every hearer to a sincere concern for his own soul's salvation. There are times when the mind may be expected to be more awake to divine truth, and the conscience more open to the arrows of conviction than at others. A season of public judgment is of this kind, as appears from what has been already said. That curiosity and attention at least are raised in some degree is plain from the unusual throng of this assembly. Can you have a clearer view of the sinfulness of your nature, than when the rod of the oppressor is lifted up, and when [30] you see men putting on the habit of the warrior, and collecting on every hand the weapons of hostility and instruments of death? I do not blame your ardour in preparing for the resolute defence of your temporal rights. But consider I beseech you, the truly infinite importance of the salvation of your souls. Is it of much moment whether you and your children shall be rich or poor, at liberty or in bonds? Is it of much moment whether this beautiful country shall increase in fruitfulness from year to year being cultivated by active industry, and possessed by independent free men, or the scanty produce of neglected fields shall be eaten up by hungry publicans, while the timid owner trembles at the tax gatherers approach? And is it of less moment my brethren, whether you shall be the heirs of glory, or the heirs of hell? Is your state on earth for a few fleeting years of so much moment? And is it of less moment, what shall be your state through endless ages? Have you assembled together willingly to hear what shall be said on public affairs, and to join in imploring [31] the blessing of God on the councils and arms of the united colonies, and can you be unconcerned, what shall become of you for ever, when all the monuments of human greatness shall be laid in ashes, for the earth itself and all the works that are therein shall be burnt up.

Wherefore my beloved hearers, as the ministry of reconciliation is committed to me, I beseech you in the most earnest manner, to attend to the things that belong to your peace, before they are hid from your eyes. How soon and in what manner a seal shall be set upon the character and state of every person here present, it is impossible to know, for he who only can know does not think proper to reveal it. But you may rest assured that there is no time more suitable, and there is none so safe as that which is present, since it is wholly uncertain whether any other shall be yours. Those who shall first fall in battle, have not many more warnings to receive. There are some few daring and hardened sinners who despise eternity itself, and set their maker at defiance, [32] but the far greater number by staving off their convictions to a more convenient season, have been taken unprepared and thus eternally lost. I would therefore earnestly press the apostles exhortation, We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also, that ye receive not the grace of God in vain: For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation. {13}

Suffer me to beseech you, or rather to give you warning not to rest satisfied with a form of godliness, denying the power thereof. There can be no true religion, till there be a discovery of your lost state by nature and practice, and an unfeigned acceptance of Christ Jesus, as he is offered in the gospel. Unhappy they who either despise his mercy, or are ashamed of his cross! believe it, there is no salvation in any other. There is no other name under heaven given amongst men by which we must be saved. Unless you are united to him by a lively faith, not [33] the resentment of a haughty monarch, but the sword of divine justice hangs over you, and the fulness of divine vengeance shall speedily overtake you. I do not speak this only to the heathen daring profligate, or grovelling sensualist, but to every insensible secure sinner; to all those however decent and orderly in their civil deportment, who live to themselves and have their part and portion in this life; in fine to all who are yet in a state of nature, for except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. The fear of man may make you hide your profanity; prudence and experience may make you abhor intemperance and riot; as you advance in life, one vice may supplant another and hold its place; but nothing less than the sovereign grace of God can produce a saving change of heart and temper, or fit you for his immediate presence.

2. From what has been said upon this subject, you may see what ground there is to give praise to God for his favours already bestowed on us, respecting the [34] public cause. It would be a criminal inattention not to observe the singular interposition of providence hitherto, in behalf of the American colonies. It is however impossible for me in a single discourse, as well as improper at this time to go thro' every step of our past transactions, I must therefore content myself with a few remarks. How many discoveries have been made of the designs of enemies in Britain and among ourselves, in a manner as unexpected to us as to them, and in such season as to prevent their effect? What surprising success has attended our encounters in almost every instance? Has not the boasted discipline of regular and veteran soldiers been turned into confusion and dismay before the new and maiden courage of free men in defense of their property and right? In what great mercy has blood been spared on the side of this injured country? Some important victories in the south have been gained with so little loss, that enemies will probably think it has been dissembled; as many, even of ourselves thought, till time rendered it undeniable. But these [35] were comparatively of small moment. The signal advantage we have gained by the evacuation of Boston, and the shameful flight of the army and navy of Britain, was brought about without the loss of a man. To all this we may add, that the counsels of our enemies have been visibly confounded, so that I believe I may say with truth, that there is hardly any step which they have taken, but it has operated strongly against themselves, and been more in our favour than if they had followed a contrary course.

While we give praise to God the supreme disposer of all events, for his interposition in our behalf, let us guard against the dangerous error of trusting in, or boasting of an arm of flesh. I could earnestly wish, that while our arms are crowned with success, we might content ourselves with a modest ascription of it to the power of the highest. It has given me great uneasiness to read some ostentatious, vaunting expressions in our newspapers, though happily I think, much restrained of late. Let us not return to [36] them again. If I am not mistaken, not only the Holy Scriptures in general, and the truths of the glorious gospel in particular, but the whole course of providence seems intended to abase the pride of man, and lay the vain-glorious in the dust. How many instances does history furnish us with those who after exulting over, and despising their enemies, were signally and shamefully defeated {14}. The truth is, I believe, the remark may be applied universally, and we may say, that thro' the whole frame of nature, and the whole system of human life, that which promises most, performs the least. The flowers of finest colour seldom have the sweetest fragrance. The trees of quickest growth or fairest form, are seldom of the greatest value or duration. Deep waters move with least noise. Men who think most are seldom talkative. And I think it holds as much in war as in any thing, that every boaster is a coward.[37]

Pardon me my brethren for insisting so much upon this which may seem but an immaterial circumstance. It is in my opinion of very great moment. I look upon ostentation and confidence to be a sort of outrage upon providence, and when it becomes general, and infuses itself into the spirit of destruction. How does Goliath the champion, armed in a most formidable manner express his disdain of David the stripling with his sling and his stone. And when the Philistine looked about and saw David, he disdained him: for he was but a youth, and ruddy, and of a fair countenance. And the Philistine said unto David, Am I a dog, that thou comest to me with staves? And the Philistine cursed David by his gods, and the Philistine said to David come to to me and I will give thy flesh unto the fowls of the air, and to the beasts of the field. But how just and modest the reply? Then said David to the Philistine, thou comest to me with a sword and with a spear, and with a shield, but I come unto thee in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, who thou hast defied. {15} I was well pleased with a remark of this kind thirty years ago in a pamphlet,{16} in which it was observed, that there was a great deal of profane ostentation in the names given to ships of war, as the Victory, the Valiant, the Thunderer, the Dreadnought, the Terrible, the Firebrand, the Furnace, the Lightening, the Infernal, and many more of the same kind. This the author considered as a symptom of the national character and manners very unfavorable, and not likely to obtain the blessing of the God of Heaven.{17}

3. From what has been said you may learn what encouragement you have to put your trust in God, and hope for his assistance in the resent important conflict. He is the Lord of hosts, great in might, and strong in battle. Whoever hath his countenance and approbation, shall have the best at last. I do not mean to speak prophetically, but agreeably to the analogy of faith, and the principles of God's moral government. Some have observed that true religion and in her train dominion, riches, literature, and arts, have taken their course in a slow and gradual manner, from east to west since the earth has settled after the flood, and from hence forbode the future glory of America. I leave this as a matter rather of conjecture than certainty, but observe, that if your cause is just,--if your principles are pure,--and if your conduct is prudent, you need not fear the multitude of opposing hosts.

If your cause is just--you may look with confidence to the Lord and intreat him to plead it as his own. You are all my [39] witnesses, that this is the first time of my introducing any political subject into the pulpit. At this season, however, it is not only lawful but necessary, and I willingly embrace the opportunity of declaring my opinion without any hesitation, that the cause in which America is now in arms, is the cause of Justice, of liberty, and of human nature. So far as we have hitherto proceeded, I am satsfied that the confederacy of the colonies, has not been the effect of pride, resentment, or sedition, but of a deep and general conviction, that our civil and religious liberties, and consequently in a great measure the temporal and eternal happiness of us and our posterity depended on the issue. The knowledge of God and his truths have from the beginning of the world been chiefly, if not entirely confined to these parts of the earth, where some degree of liberty and political justice were to be seen, and great were the difficulties with which they had to struggle from the imperfection of human society, and the unjust decisions of usurped authority. There is not a single instance in history [41] in which civil liberty was lost, and religious liberty preserved entire. If therefore we yield up our temporal property, we at the same time deliver the conscience into bondage.

You shall not, my brethren, hear from me in the pulpit, what you have never heard from me in conversation, I mean railing at the king personally, or even his ministers and the parliament, and people of Britain, as so many barbarous savages. Many of their actions have probably been worse than their intentions. That they should desire unlimited dominion if they can obtain or preserve it, is neither new nor wonderful. I do not refuse submission to their unjust claims, because they are corrupt or profligate, although probably many of them are so, but because they are men, and therefore liable to all the selfish bias inseparable from human nature. I call this claim unjust of making laws to bind us in all cases whatsoever, because they are separated from us, independent of us, and have an interest in opposing us. Would [42] any man who could prevent it, give up his estate, person, and family, to the disposal of his neighbor, although he had liberty to chuse the wisest and the best matter? Surely not. This is the true and proper hinge of the controversy between Great Britain and America. It is however to be added, that such is their distance from us, that a wise and prudent administration of our affairs is as impossible as the claim of authority is unjust. Such is and must be their ignorance of the state of things here, so much time must elapse before an error can be seen and remedied, and so much injustice and partiality must be expected from the arts and misrepresentation of interested person, that for these colonies to depend wholly upon the legislature of Great Britain, would be like many other oppressive connexions, injury to the master, and ruin to the slave.

Endnotes

{8} Psalms lxxviii, 34, 35.

{9} Luke xiii, 1.

{10} The matter is fully stated and reasoned upon by the prophet Isaiah ch. x. from the 5th to the 19th verse.

{11} Act. iv. 24--28.

{12} Lest this should be thought a temporising compliment to the people of New-England, who have been the first sufferers in the present contest, and have set so noble an example of invincible fortitude in withstanding the violence of oppression, I think it proper to observe that the whole paragraph is copied from a sermon on Psalms lxxiv, 22, prepared and attached in Scotland, in the month of August, 1758.

{13} 2 Cor. vi. 1,2.

{14} There is no story better known in British history than that of the officers of the French army the night preceding the battle of Agincourt, played at dice for English prisoners before they took them, and the next day were taken by them.

{15} I Sam. xvii, 42, 43, 44 ,45.

{16} Britains Remembrances.

{17} I am sensible that one or two of these were ships taken from the French, which brought their names with them. But the greatest number had their names imposed in England, and I cannot help observing that the Victory when celebrated as the finest ship ever built in Britain, was lost in the night without a storm, by some unknown accident, and about twelve hundred persons, many of them the first families in the nation were buried with it in the deep. I do not mean to infer any thing from this, but, that we ought to live under the practical persuasion of what no man will doctrinally deny, that there is no warring with the elements, or Him who directs their force, that He is able to write disappointment on the wisest human schemes, and by the word of his power to frustrate the efforts of the greatest monarch upon earth.

(The conclusion, Part Three, will appear in Issue the Seventeenth)

Miscellaneous Notes

Beware of anyone getting hold of you by a means of a theosophy which is specious make-believe, on the lines of human tradition, corresponding to the elemental spirits of the world and not to Christ. Col. 2:8.

Postal Money Orders

"Post Office money orders are not negotiable instruments subject to the defenses permitted to bona fide holders for value by the law merchant. The reason is that in the establishment and operation of the postal money order system, the government is not engaging in commercial transactions, but exercises a governmental power for the public benefit. Furthermore, the restrictions and limitations which the postal laws and regulations place upon money orders are inconsistent with the character of negotiable instruments. First, by the postal regulations, the cashing of a money order cannot under ordinary circumstances be made in advance of the receipt of the corresponding advice; second, more than one endorsement of a money order invalidates it; third, after an order has once been paid by whomsoever presented, the department will not be further liable; fourth, payment of orders will be withheld under a variety of circumstances." Bolognesi v. U.S., 189 Fed. 335, 111 CCA 67, 36 LRANS 143.

Numbered Addresses

On page A9 of the March 11, 1997 issue of 'The Eastside Journal,' a Bellevue, Washington daily newspaper, Associated Press writer Calvin Woodward featured an article titled, 'What's in a number? Modern digital confusion.' His chart therein, titled, 'March of numbers: how the digit revolution began,' begins with the year 1863, wherein he states, "1863: Advent of numbered addresses. Before, people went to post offices for mail addressed only by name and city."

He didn't bother mentioning that general delivery is still in place with no numbers attached, 134 years latter, and the devastating implications of having that numbered home and mailbox. The news media strikes again!!

Capitalization

From the State of Washington 'Bill Drafting Guide for the Legislature,': "The following capitalization should be observed in drafting bills. Note that resolutions, memorials, and amendment headings require more liberal capitalization."

Why is it that these headings 'require' more liberal capitalization, i.e., all caps? Is it because the legislature has no standing in law, and cannot therefore legally capitalize resolutions and amendments according to the rules of the English language.

Further, it states that they do not, when drafting a bill, capitalize 'county' or 'state.' These are the original at-law subdivisions, which cannot be tampered with by a de facto legislature.

Abraham's seed

Those 'Christians' who believe that, due to the color of their white skin, they hold some special place with God, obviously overlooked the following verses from Scripture, at Galatians, chapter 3:

"Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham." verse 7.
"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, their is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then ye are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." verses 26-29.

Christian Deviations

The following is from the close of Chapter One of 'Christian Deviations,' a book written in 1957 by the author of 'The English Free Churchs,' Horton Davies:

"There is the supreme danger of failing to acknowledge the fullness, the uniqueness and the finality of the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation. All the sects suffer from this defect, otherwise they would not have come into being. Where Jesus is thought of as a first-century teacher and inspired prophet, as was often the case in Communions which accepted what was known as a 'reduced Christology', the way was already open for the displacement of Jesus by later and self-appointed prophets like Ellen White, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith or Annie Besant. Where He is accepted as the Eternal and only-begotten Son of God, and worshipped as the Lord of lords and King of kings, and obeyed as Master, Christian humility makes it impossible for a mere human to pretend to a better insight into the mind of God than Jesus had.
Finally, Christianity will be victorious over all its rivals when it is most true to its own inheritance. If it cares for the bodies, the souls, and the organization of a just order of society, it will have nothing to fear from Communism. If the fellowship of Christians is a genuine community and family springing from the communion with the God and Father of us all, if Christian members confess their sins in sincerity and with a desire to make reparation to those whom they have wronged, and if they provide a way of life with opportunities of thrilling service for its younger members, Christianity need have nothing to fear from the Oxford Group Movement or Open-air Religion. If it places the doctrines of the resurrection and of the Communion of Saints in the centre of its worship, the spurious attractions of Spiritism will be unavailing because dispelled by faith in the Risen Christ. If Christianity takes seriously the miraculous powers of faith in a wonder-working God, Christian Science will lose its hold on its followers. If Christians really believe that their Lord has won a triple victory over sin, suffering and death, and that 'all things work together for good to them that love God', they will not relapse into the superstition of Astrology. If the Churches proclaim of Christ by life and by lip that 'there is none other Name whereby we must be saved', Theosophy and indeed all other religions will lose their attractions. If the Church by its abounding charity manifests in its international and interracial fellowship that there is neither 'Jew nor Greek, bond nor free', and that God is no respecter of persons, all racialistic distortions of the faith such as British-Israel and the German-Christian Movement will earn the unceasing antagonism of Christians. If Christians accept the general promises of Christ, and do not try to implement His reverent silences with details drawn from their own materialistic imaginations, and show a comparable zeal for transmitting their holy faith, then the unscriptural predictions of the Seventh-Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses will deceive no Christian.
In brief, the best defense of the Christian faith is to know and to obey the 'mind of Christ', who is alone the Way, the Truth and the Life."

From Crabb's English Synonyms

To Abide, Sojourn, Dwell, Live, Reside, Inhabit, and Transient

ABIDE, in Saxon abitan, old German beitea, comes from the Arabic or Persian but or bit, to pass the night, that is, to make a partial stay. SOJOURN, in French, sejourner, from sub and diurnus, in the daytime, signifies to pass the day, that is, a certain portion of one's time, in a place. DWELL, from the Danish dwelger, to abide, and the Saxon dwelian, Dutch dwalen, to wander, conveys the idea of a movable habitation, such as was the practice of living formerly in tents. At present it implies a stay in a place by way of residence, which is expressed in common discourse by the word LIVE, for passing one's life. RESIDE, from the Latin re and sideo, to sit down, conveys the full idea of settlement. INHABIT, from the Latin habito, a frequentative of habeo, signifies to have or occupy for a permanency.

Abide and sojourn relate more properly to the wandering habits of men in a primitive state of society. Live, reside, and inhabit, are confined to a civilized state of society.

The Easterns abode with each other, sojourned in a country, and dwelt in tents. The angels abode with Lot that night; Abram sojourned in the land of Cannan; the Israelites dwelt in the land of Goshen. Savages either dwell in the cavities which nature has formed for them, or in some rude structure erected for a temporary purpose; but as men increase in cultivation they build places for themselves which they can inhabit: the poor have their cottages in which they can live; the wealthy provide themselves with supurb buildings in which they reside.

TRANSIENT, that is, passing, or in the act of passing, characterizes what in its nature exists only for the moment: a glance is transient. pp. 10 & 793.

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

Danger of Keeping Bad Company

The danger of keeping bad company arises principally from our aptness to imitate and catch the manners and sentiments of others. In our earliest youth, contagion of manner is observable; in the boy, yet incapable of having any learning instilled into him, we easily discover from his last actions, and rude attempt at language, the kind of persons with whom he has associated; we see the early spring of education or the first wild shots of rusticity. As he enters farther into life, his behavior and conversation take their cast from the company he keeps.

Manners and behavior are not more easily caught than opinions and principles. In the childhood and the youth, we naturally adopt the sentiments of those about us. As we advance in life, how few think for ourselves; how many of us are satisfied with taking our opinions at second hand!

The great power of custom forms another argument against keeping bad company. However shocked we may be at the approach of vice, the shocking appearance vanishes upon an intimacy therewith; custom renders the most disgusting objects familiar to our view. Indeed, this is a kind of provision of nature, to render labor and danger, which are the lot of man, more easy to him. The raw soldier, who trembles at the first encounter, becomes fearless in a few campaigns. Habit renders danger familiar.

But habit, which is intended for our good, may, like other kinds of appointments of nature, be converted into mischief. The well-disposed youth, entering first into bad company, is shocked at what he sees, and what he hears. The principles which he had imbibed, ring in his ears an alarming lesson against the wickedness of his companions; but, alas! this sensibility is of short continuance; the next jovial meeting makes the horrid picture of yesterday more easily endured; virtue is soon thought a severe rule, and restraint inconvenient. A few pangs of conscience now, and soon it is seared, and in a short time he is ruined. Let the young beware of bad company.

The Blacksmith

A CONSCIENTIOUS blacksmith, soon after becoming savingly acquainted with Jesus Christ, was tried by the customary applications to do little necessary jobs, as they called, on Sunday; and at length came to a determination to do no work on that holy day, except such as, from inquiry into the case, should appear in his own opinion to be necessary. He was soon after called upon by a traveler on Sunday morning, to replace a shoe for his horse. "Friend," said the blacksmith, "this you know is the Lord's day; and I do not feel at liberty to do any work on this day, except of necessity or mercy. You will excuse me therefore, for inquiring whether your journeying on this day is necessary?" "Why as to that," answered the traveler, "I don't know that it is absolutely necessary; but if I keep on, I shall get home to-night, and put an end to those tavern bills and expenses." "So, my friend, you think to save a few shillings is a sufficient excuse for you to break the Lord's day; and of course to earn a few shillings, would be sufficient reason for my doing the same! Such an excuse, I assure you, will not quiet conscience in the sight of God, and therefore I cannot shoe your horse."

Immediately after this, a carriage stopped at his door, and a gentleman accosted him with a request to repair a bolt, which had just broken. "Sir," said the blacksmith, "I am just preparing with my family, to go to the house of God; and I do not feel at liberty to break off from the proper employments of this holy day, for the accommodation of travelers, without urgent and real necessity." "Such," replied the gentleman, "is my case. I am as reluctant as you very justly are, to violate this day of sacred rest. But I am conveying a dying friend from the country, where she has in vain sought the recovery of her health, to her own home, where she wishes to die. We cannot proceed unless the carriage be repaired; and if retained on the road to-day, there is a probability of her expiring before she reaches home." "In this case," answered the blacksmith, "I cannot hesitate." He accordingly exchanged his dress, went to his shop, kindled his fire, and performed the necessary repair. The gentleman, with thanks, gave him a compensation; which, it is needless to add, he put upon the contribution plate, as belonging to Him, whose time he had consumed in earning it.

Issue the Sixteenth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

What is the Law Merchant...

Admissions and Confessions, Part Four...

The Book of the Hundreds, Third Edition ...

To Be or Not to Be: Home-less...

Where is the Authority? you ask, Part One...

Civil Rights: the Road to Serfdom...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

What is the Law Merchant?

A Law Review

The following are excerpts from a law review article on 'The Law Merchant,' written by noted jurist John S. Ewart which appeared in The Columbia Law Review, Volume III 135, March 1903. It is a rebuttal to an earlier law review by Professor Francis M. Burdick [Columbia Law Review, Volume II 470, March, 1902], in which Professor Burdick criticized Mr. Ewart's writings on The Law Merchant. We hope you find this information of value for knowing the enemy--as we do. In Issue the Seventeenth next month we will feature noted jurist Frederick Pollock's law review on 'The History of the Law of Nature' and its ties to the Law Merchant.

Let me transcribe the two principal sentences impeached, adding two others from the context, and then make such defence as I can:

"As a matter of fact, and not merely of phrase, may we not even ask whether there is a law of merchants, in any other sense than there is a law of financiers, or a law of tailors? Frequent use of the word has almost produced the impression that as there was a civil law and a canon law, so also there was somewhere a 'law merchant' of very peculiar authority and sanctity; about which, however, it is now quite futile to inquire and presumptuous to argue. If the custom of merchants as to bills of exchange was recognized by the courts, so also has the custom of financiers as to the negotiability of bonds and scrips been recognized; but no one would think of referring to the 'law financier' in speaking of that negotiability. The rules respecting bills and notes are not traceable to any foreign or extraneous body of law." [Ewart on Estoppel, 373.4.]

Now, I cannot deny that Professor Burdick's authorities are of the most overwhelming and convincing sort. And I admit they establish the following propositions:

1. There were special courts for the administration of what was called the law merchant - courts pepoudrous, staple courts, courts of merchants, etc.
2. That these courts proceeded according to a practice quite different from, and much more expeditious than, the common law courts.
3. That in such courts decisions were regulated by what was called the law merchant-the Statute of the Staple, [27 Ed. 3,2. ] providing "that all merchants coming to the Staple shall be ruled by the law merchant and not by the common law of the land."
4. That many authorities declare that this law merchant was so well known that it was practically the same in all European countries.
5. That many authorities point to the law merchant as being the source of many of our present legal ideas.

It is apparent that for several centuries there was a true body of law in England which was known as the law merchant. It was as distinct from the law administered by the common law courts as was the civil or the canon law.

1. That there was in the Roman law a special court for the administration of the "Law of Nations." [The court of the Praetor Perregrinus.]
2. That the practice in such court differed from that in other courts. (I am not sure that it did, but the point is immaterial.)
3. That in such court decisions were regulated by what was called "the Law of Nations."
4. That Justinian's Institutes declare that private law "is composed of three elements, and consists of precepts belonging to Natural Law, to the Law of Nations, and to the Civil Law;" [Tit. I. S. 4.] and that "the Law of Nations is common to all mankind." [Tit. II. ss. 1,2.]
5. And that Justinian also declared that "by the Law of Nations almost all contracts were at first introduced, as, for instance, buying and selling, letting and hiring, partnership, deposits, loans returnable in kind, and very many others." [Tit. s. 2.]

I would admit all this; and yet Professor Burdick would agree with me that when the first praetor (the Lord Mansfield, in some sense, of his day) took up his first case, or issued his first edict, there was no "true body of law" in Rome or elsewhere "that was known" as the Law of Nations.

Changing again, let us ask: "As a matter of fact and not merely of phrase, whether there was ever a body of law known as the Law of Nature"? We must admit, of course, that our law books are full of references to it; that Justinian declares that the laws of nature "which all nations observe alike, being established by a providence, remain ever fixed and immutable ;" [Tit. III, s. 11.] that the Stoics thought that they knew all about these laws of nature; that Rousseau discoursed about them in fashion that moved the world; and that everybody thinks he has some special insight into them. And yet, Professor Burdick will agree that, save in so far as such laws have been done into statutes and decisions, there is no "true body of law" in England or elsewhere that was known as the Law of Nature.

Changing once more, "As a matter of fact and not merely of phrases, may we not even ask whether there is a Common Law or an Equity"? Of course, there are, or were, courts for the administration of what goes by these names; and their practices are different, and so on; but when these courts were first established was there, or was there not, "a true body of law in England which was known as" Common Law or Equity? We have now statutes, and decisions, and responsa prudentium (as we may call our text books - or some of them); but these are not the common law. These are tangible, legible, concrete things - at best ascertainments of what is called the Common Law. [They are not even that. Nor as has been said, are they evidence of what the Common Law was; for no one imagines that they are results of actual inquiry into what law was common to all Englishmen.] The Common Law is, and always was, in the air. Put it into authoritative, legible shape, and it has changed its character. It has become Judiciary Law. Bentham made that all clear to us, long enough ago. ["Common Law, as it styles itself in England, judiciary law as it might be styled everywhere." Principles of Morals and Legislation, Preface, p. 8. And see Jenks' Law and Politics in the Middle Ages, p. 39.] In the same way the Law of Nations became Praetorian law as soon as it appeared in the Praetor's edict. ["Praetorian obligations are those which the praetor has established by his own authority." Justinian's Inst. Lib. III, tit. XIII, s. 1.] If you are in doubt about it ask yourself the meaning of the phrase "derived from the common law." Does it mean, derived from some statute, or decision, or code, or other portable document? Not at all. Or does it mean derived from some investigation into what was the law common to all persons, or to all English persons? No, not in the slightest.

And may we not fairly ask, if there was "a true body of law in England which was known as the law merchant," that we may have a look at it; or if it has been lost, that we may be furnished with a statement from somebody who at some time did see it, or knew somebody who had heard that any body had ever seen it? It "is easier longed for than found," said the great Judge Willes. [Lloyd. Buibert (1865) L. R. 1 Q. B. 125.]

Professor Burdick claims that the "ancient law merchant was a body of substantive law;" that it existed "for several centuries" prior to the time of Coke; that between the time of Coke and Mansfield (1606-1756) the term 'law merchant' "loses much of the definiteness which characterized it" prior to that period; and that since Mansfield's date "these two bodies of rules (Law Merchant and Common Law) no longer stand apart as they did three centuries ago." As against this I contend that there was no body of Law Merchant before Mansfield; that prior to that time there was nothing but a heterogeneous lot of loose un-digested customs, which it is impossible to dignify with the name of a body of law; that Mansfield (principally) formulated, developed and declared what is called the Law Merchant, and that its "rules are not traceable to any foreign or extraneous body of laws." For settlement of the question I am now going to appeal to Professor Burdick's article.

He divides the English history of the subject into three periods: [Following here and elsewhere the Introduction to Smith's Mercantile Law.]

(1) Prior to Coke (1606), when the old pepoudrous and staple courts were in full activity, and the "body" was no doubt in robustest condition.
(2) Between Coke and Mansfield (1606-1756), when the jurisdiction was passing from the old courts to the regular tribunals, during which, "the term law merchant loses much of its definiteness."
(3) Lord Mansfield and subsequently.

Remembering that we are in search of 'a true body of law," and not a mere set of customs, at the time when Coke's court was acquiring jurisdiction in merchants' cases, let us see how Coke and the other judges proceeded. Did they get a look at the "true body of law," or even know anything of its existence? Professor Burdick supplies the only possible answer. He says that evidence was called in each case, and:

"The law merchant was proved as foreign law now is. It was a question of fact. [Italics here and elsewhere are those of the present writer.] Merchants spoke to the existence of their customs as foreign lawyers speak to the existence of laws abroad. When so proved, a custom was part of the law of the land. This condition of things existed for about a century and a half." (1606-1756).

This procedure is very familiar to all of us. We have, for example, a grain case: The grain men have certain customs applicable to the point in dispute; we give evidence of that custom; and the court decides with reference to it. But we should never make the mistake of saying that prior to such evidence there was "a true body of law" upon the subject known as the law-grain-dealer, a law never theretofore heard of by the judges.

I do not wish unduly to press for a rigid or technical meaning of the words "a body of law," and get myself into dispute with the advocates and opponents of Austin's definition. But attaching almost any significance to the term, may I not fairly say that there never was "a true body of law" in England, the existence of which had to be proved as a fact? And yet that was what had to be done before Coke would recognize the "law merchant."

And it will be observed that what was proved was not law at all, but, as Professor Burdick says, customs. "Merchants testified to the existence of their customs." Just as financiers or tailors would testify as to theirs. When so proved (not before) "a custom was part of the law of the land."

We may say then that there was not much that looks like "a body of Law" when Coke commenced his duties; that is, when there was a law merchant if ever there was one. Let Professor Burdick (quoting from Scrutton) now tell us to what extent it materialized during the succeeding 150 years:

"As the law merchant was considered as custom, it was the habit to leave the custom and the facts to the jury without any directions in the point of law, with a result that cases were rarely reported as laying down any particular rule, because it was almost impossible to separate the customs from the facts; as a result little was done towards building up any system of mercantile law in England."

And Scrutton was right, for Buller, J. (Mansfield's colleague) tells us that:

"Before Lord Mansfield's time we find that in the courts of law all the evidence in mercantile cases was thrown together; they were left generally to the jury and they produced no established principle." [Lickbarrow v. Mason (1787), 2 T. R. 63.]

But we are now a full century and a half after the time when "a true body of law" had existed; when it had been administered by special courts, and with special practices; when it was so well known that it had come to be practically the same in all European countries (so it is said); when it had commenced shedding offspring in the way of peculiar laws as to partnership, jus accrescendi, stoppage in transitu, etc. (so we are told). And we have thus the very peculiar situation of "a true body of law" in robustest condition in 1606, but so unknown to the judges from that time on, that its existence had to be proven to them; and a law always so jumbled up with the facts that after the regular courts had been at it for a century and a half all we can say is that little had been done "towards building up any system of mercantile law in England;" that "no established principle had been produced."

Professor Burdick tells us, what indeed we might have expected, that "Lord Mansfield was dissatisfied with this condition of the law and devoted his great abilities to its improvement." And watching for a little the methods of that great judge, [Observe what he himself said in Luke v. Lyde (1750) 2 Burr. 887, about his methods.] we shall be able to see whether he thought that he had in hand "a true body of law" which he was endeavoring to administer, or whether he was really formulating, developing, and declaring something of his own, or nearly so. Professor Burdick shall again help us:

"We are told that he reared a special body of jurymen at Guildhall, who were generally retained in all commercial cases to be tried there. He was on terms of familiar intercourse with them, not only conversing freely with them, but inviting them to dine with him. From them he learned the usages of trade, and in return he took great pains in explaining to them the principal's of jurisprudence by which they were to be guided. When a mercantile case came before him, he sought to discover not only the mercantile usage which was involved, but the legal principle underlying it The great study has been to find some general principle, not only to rule the particular case under consideration, but serve as a guide for the future. It was from such sources, [The rhodian laws; the Consolate del Mare; the laws of Oleron and Wisly; the Ordinances of Louis XIV, etc., of which most probably Lord Mansfield's guests had never heard.] and from the current usages of merchants, that he undertook to develop a body of legal rules which should be free from the technicality of the common law, and whose principles shall be so broad, and sound, and just as to commend themselves to all courts in all countries."

But why all this bother if 150 years before there was in existence "a true body of law in England which was known as the law merchant;" if during those 150 years Coke and others had been administering that law; and if, as Professor Burdick tells us, Lord Mansfield had theretofore "discovered that the usages and customs of merchants were in the main the same throughout Europe"?

Here my defense might end. But I should be misunderstood if I did not explain myself more fully. I must vindicate my view, of the phrases, The Law of Nature, The Law of Nations, Equity, The Law Merchant. Here, too, I may take the liberty of diverging from current methods of thought and expression; but I shall not be without some solid support for my notions. I have not space for many citations. Let the student refer to the books mentioned below. [Sir Henry Maine's works, principally his Ancient Law; Sir Frederick Pollock's Essays in Jurisprudence and Ethics, Cap. 2 & 12; and his articles in 1 Columbia Law Review, 11, and 2 Columbia Law Review, 131; James Bryce's Studies in Hist. And Jur. Essays XI and XuIV; Holmes' The common Law; Lightwood's The Nature of Positive Law; Jenks' Law and Politics in the Middle Ages.]

The human mind craves generalizations and unifications, and it will play many dishonest tricks with itself in order that it may enjoy the gratification of these seeming requisites of intellectual satisfaction. See what it has done with our legal history:

"The Law of Nature:! What a fine, mouth filing soul-satisfying nonentity. Follow it through Greeks, Stoics, Roman Lawyers, Medieval Ecclesiastics, Grotius, Hobbes, Rousseau, Bentham, and make an entity "a true body" of it, if you can. In metaphorical and figurative sense we may speak of the laws of nature, meaning some observed physical sequences. But this "Law of Nature," was it ever anything but an empty abstraction or even hallucination? A sort of a shadow of some "lost code" that never existed? An underlying principle [See Maine's Ancient Law, 77.] which, could we but find it (fire, air, water, etc., have all been advocated and rejected), would, we may fancy, correlate and explain everything; but which still unfortunately for us underlies and is for the present at least plainly not capable of being got out of that? It is said that it is that "Ultimate principle of fitness, in regard to the nature of man as a rational and social being, which is, or ought be, the justification of every form of law." [Sir Frederick in 1 Columbia Law Review, 11.]

But that sort of a principle is, of course, a little difficult to look at quite steadily. In truth we only call it a principle, as we call God a spirit because we don't know what a spirit is, and must say something. If, too, we are told that it is "The rules of conduct deducible by reason from the general conditions of human society" [Ibid., 14.] may we not humbly ask that some able reasoner will deduce them, and once for all and forthwith print them?

We are more inclined to the suggestion that the Law of Nature is "The ideal to which actual law and custom could only approximate." [Ibid., 14. And see Maine's Ancient Law, 77.] but we must add that it is an ideal of very vague, fluctuating, and uncertain character, swinging according to times and persons from the heroisms of savagery to the beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount; and that no clearheaded man will undertake to put it in type. It no doubt has its uses if left as "A mental vision of a type of perfect law." [Maine's Ancient Law, 77ff.] but, on the whole, it will do better if left there than if photographed by some spiritualistic or other occult apparatus. Austin rejects altogether "the appellation 'Law of Nature,' as ambiguous and misleading." He calls it "the Divine Law or the Law of God," which, he says, makes everything clear in this fashion:

"There are human actions which all mankind approve; human actions which all men disapprove. Being common to all mankind and inseparable from the thoughts of those actions, these sentiments are marks or signs of the Divine pleasure. * * * The rectitude or pravity of human conduct is instantly inferred from these sentiments without the possibility of mistake."[Austin's Lectures on Jurisprudence, 105 f.]

This Common Law of England is the most impudent pretender of all these phantom laws. For unquestionably a very large part of it was not law of England at all (common or special) but simply Roman law, smuggled in by Bracton [Maine's Ancient Law, 82], openly introduced by Holt, [Law of Bailments in Coggs v. Bernard (1703), Ld. Raymond, 909.] consciously and unconsciously adopted by many others. And perhaps the idea that the Common Law of England was "the law of the royal court," as opposed to the local laws of the old seigniorial courts - a sort of jus gentium imposed by a Praetor Peregrinus - is the real meaning of the term. [Jenks' Law 3 & Pol. Of the Middle Ages, 35-6.] Maine thinks that by its earliest expositors "it was regarded as existing somewhere in the form of a symmetrical body of express rules, adjusted to definite principles. The knowledge of the system however in its full amplitude and proportions was supposed to be confined to the breasts of the judges; and the lay public and the mass of the legal profession were only permitted to discern its canons intertwined with the facts of the adjudged cases. Many traces of this ancient theory remain in the language of our judgments and forensic arguments." [Village Communities, 335.]

Equity has never had such a concrete look as this Common Law (the adjective of which might have kept us right if we had not forgotten its significance). Equity, we admit, is an unwritten and inexpressible aspiration. But have you observed (as hinted at above) that as the Roman Civil law, built of common sense, became caked and afterwards yielded to a new infusion of more common sense (insidiously introduced under the name of the Law of Nations); so the Common Law of England, builded of reason and caked by custom (precedents and forms)[ Bryce's Studies in Hist. & Jur. 697.], succumbed to more reason through the fiction of the King's conscience ["It is the special business of Equity to reintroduce those considerations which have been dropped in arriving at the rules of law," Lightwood's The Nature of Positive law, 40; and see p. 300.]?

Æquitas (the meeting point of Law of Nature and Law of Nations) played in the Roman Reformation of law very much the same part as Equity in the English.[See Maine's Ancient Law, cap. 3.] Mr. Bryce's description of it would answer for both Systems. He says "Equity means, to the Romans, fairness, right feeling, the regard for substantial, as opposed to formal, and technical, justice, the kind of conduct which would approve itself to a man of honor and conscience." We are now a little better prepared for a true understanding of the Law Merchant. So far we have had various titles and we have found them to be perfectly empty of meaning - mere names and nothing there to name. How is it with the Law Merchant?

In the present writer's opinion the amelioration and improvement of English law is attributable (apart from legislation and acknowledged fictions) to Equity, Common Counts, Public Policy and Law Merchant. Equity was a renaissance-a return to the Law of Nature, or the Law of Nations, or the Common Law (reflect on that for a moment), or Common Sense as you may choose to call it. Mansfield's tricks with the Common Counts [Lord Mansfield was quite frank in what he did. Weaker men would have pretended some precedent. Mansfield avowed that "the gist of this kind of action is that the defendant upon the circumstances of the case is obliged by ties of natural justice and equity to refund the money." Moses v. MacFerlan (1760), 2 Burr. 1005. And weaker men ever since have been attributing Mansfield's decisions to the Common Law and the Law Merchant. Blackstone knew better and ascribes Mansfield's work to "Natural reason and the just construct of the law" (Commentaries, Bk. III, c. 9).] and the Law Merchant were in reality but new and ingenious and masterful methods by which human reason of years gone by (obsolescent indeed, but caked and riveted there) was made to yield to human reason of later time. The cakes were called the Common Law, but they had ceased to represent common sense. The new human reason might also (just as properly) have been called the Common Law, but they named it Law Merchant, and people ever since have been looking for the thing, not knowing that it was nothing. Find the Law of Nature, the Law of God, the Law of Nations, the Law of Reason, the Law Universal, the Common Law, Equity-find Common Sense, and I shall have much pleasure in accepting at your hands an introduction to the Law Merchant.

Am I wrong in thus identifying the Law Merchant with these other empty names-these aliases, given by ourselves for the further fooling of ourselves? Let me at least shield myself behind Professor Burdick who says that Gondolphin quotes with approval the statement of Sir John Davies, that the Law Merchant, as a branch of the Law of Nations, has ever been admitted," &c. [2 Columbia Law Review, 477.]

Who quotes from Sir John Davies:

"Which Law Merchant, as it is part of the Law of Nature and Nations universal, and one and the same in all countries of the world." [Ibid., 477.]
"The Law Merchant which is a branch of the Law of Nations." [Ibid., 478.]

who quotes also from Dr, Zouch:

"It is manifest that the causes concerning merchants are not now to be decided by the peculiar and ordinary laws of every country, but by the general laws of Nature and Nations." [Ibid., 477-8.]

and who himself writes:

"As early as 1473 the Chancellor had declared that alien merchants could come before him for relief, and there have their suits determined by the Law of Nature in chancery. . . . which is called by some the Law Merchant, which is the Law Universal of the world." [Ibid., 485]. In 1473 it was said by Stillington, Edward the Fourth's Chancellor, in the great case of larceny by a carrier breaking bulk, that the cause of merchant strangers "shall be determined by the Law of Nature in the Chancery." Foreign merchants put themselves within the king's jurisdiction by coming into the realm, but the jurisdiction is exercisable "secundum legem naturae que est appelle par ascuns ley marchant, que est ley universal par tout le monde." [V.B. 13 Ed. 4th 9, p1. 5. Quoted from Sir F. Pollock, 2 Columbia Law Review, 28.]

But for all prose purposes we might as well speak of the Law Universal of the Universe; for this ubiquity which people are accustomed to attribute to their own ideas is asserted for the same evidential purposes as the avatar claims of all religion--founders, and with as much verity as (we shall say) all but one of these. "The Law of Nature is binding over all the globe in all countries," said Blackstone, [Commentaries, Introduction. s. 2.] without meaning anything in particular. "The Law of Nations is Common to all mankind," said Justinian, [Institutes, Lib. 1, tit. 2, s. 2.] meaning nothing at all. There is "a Common Law of all mankind," said Aristotle and Demosthenes and Justinian, meaning as much. There is a "Law of God," said Austin, a veritable legal touchstone meaning, if possible, still less. And now Professor Burdick quotes for us that there is a "Law Merchant which is the Law Universal of the world." Would that some swift lineotype could catch this thing, and reduce its irritating omnipresence (much too big to look at) to some one geographical spot, for sixty seconds, or even less.

This Law Merchant "one and the same in all countries in the world." And Coke and his successors after one hundred and fifty years' work at it, had done little "towards building up any system of mercantile law in England." "The same in all countries"! And poor Mansfield in his day dining his specially qualified merchant jurymen and taking "great pains in explaining to them the principles of jurisprudence by which they were to be guided." "The same in all countries."! Listen to Lord Campbell's account of Mansfield's time:

"Hence when questions necessarily arose respecting the buying and selling of goods, respecting the affreightment of ships, respecting marine insurances, and respecting bills of exchange and promissory notes, no one knew how they were to be determined. Not a treatise had been published upon any of these subjects, and no cases respecting them were to be found in our books of reports. ... If an action turning upon a mercantile question was brought into a court of law, the Judge submitted it to the jury, who determined it according to their notions of what was fair, and no general rule was laid down." [Lives of the Chief Justices, III. 274.]

"The same in all countries."! [It may be well to set over against this statement the following extract from an address delivered to the American Bar Association last summer, by M.D. Chalmers, C. S. I., and printed in The Law Quarterly Review for January, 1903: "Lord Mansfield and Mr. Justice Story, in judgments which are too well known to need citation, have emphasized the essential unity of the law merchant throughout the world; and in more recent times, Lord Blackburn has again enunciated the rule. "There are, he says, in some cases differences and peculiarities which by the municipal law of each country are grafted upon it, and which do not effect other countries; but the general rules of the law merchant are the same in all countries."] And Mansfield, endeavoring "to develop a body of legal rules," which he hoped would "commend themselves to all courts in all countries," so Professor Burdick tells us but they didn't.

If there is any one point of mercantile law more than another that would have been agreed about in Europe, it would have been the question of title (as against the true owner) to goods purchased at the fairs to which the merchants were accustomed to travel for trade purposes. But it is impossible to say that European law concurred with the English law of market overt upon the subject.

If there is any one point in the law of "negotiable securities" about which we might have expected unanimity, it would be as to title to them when passed by a thief or a finder. What the French law upon the subject was I have endeavored elsewhere to show. [35 Am. Law Review, 722, ff.] It had no resemblance whatever to that of England.

If there is any other point, in the law of bills about which agreement would be expected, it would be that which (with us) declares that a transferee after maturity takes subject to existing equities. But in France that never was the law. ["L' endorsement entraine les momes consequences qu'il soit anterieur ou posterieur a l'echeance." Lyon-Caen and renault, s. 1094.] The Germans do not agree with either of us. [See Law of 5 June, 1869, sec. 16.]

And for coup de grace let me quote from the Lex Mercatoria, in which it is said that the customs as to bills:

"In their formation, times of running, and falling due, days of grace, & c., are almost as various as each European nation from one another." [p. 561.]

What else could they be? With lay judges: no records, no law books (or next to none); facts, customs and laws, all jumbled together; little communication; no consultation--customs as various as the nations? Yes, as various as the county towns, or as one prepondrous judge's notions from those of the other unskilled temporary adjudicators, with not even a Coke to help them.

Had I more space I would proceed to treat of several points still requiring explanation, but I must content myself with suggestion:

1. My notions seem to necessitate an inversion of generally assumed order; for have I not put courts first and the law that they are to administer as something subsequent? Yes, I have done so; and that is perfectly right. The other theory: that there was a common law, and equity, a law merchant first, and then courts established to apply them, is not only unhistoric, but, save in the very simplest social relations, quite impossible.

"It must be remembered that although we are naturally inclined to think of law as coming first, and courts being afterwards created to administer the law, it is really courts that come first, and that by their actions build up law, partly out of customs observed by the people, and partly out of their own notions of justice." [Bryce's Studies in Hist. & Jur. , 79]

2. Read Maine's Ancient Law (31-33) as to the "in nubibus" law, which courts are supposed in some mysterious way to precipitate out of the clouds into library receptacles. And reflect a little on the sentence:

"We do not admit that our tribunals legislate; we imply that they have never legislated; and yet we maintain that the rules of the English Common Law, with some assistance from the Court of Chancery and from Parliament, are coextensive with the complicated interests of modern society."

A most prudent pretender, that Common Law, I think.

3. And observe this paragraph extracted from a very good book. [Lightwood's The Nature of Positive Law.]

"The proper idea of a rule of law is that it is an attempt to sum up current opinion upon a class of cases. The possibility of constructing rules, however, depends on two distinct faculties: the faculty of observation and the faculty of expression."

To which faculties the courts preposterous--I mean pepouderous--had not the slightest claim. Coke and his century and a half of successors may have had them, but, did not use them. Lord Mansfield, and not any pepoudrous predecessor "may be said to be the father of the commercial law," [Per Buller, J. In Lickbarrow v. Mason (1787), 2 T. R. 63.] the father par excellence; but of course the family has been much extended since his day. "Market law has long exercised and still exercises a dissolving and transforming influence....the wish to establish as law that which is commercially expedient is plainly visible in the recent decisions of English courts of Justice." Maine's Will. Com. 194.]:

Legal rules must ever be adjusting themselves to the requirements of human relations.' [Lightwood's The Nature of Positive Law, 360.]

4. The Law Merchant, it is suggested, is still in existence. May we not yet have hope in the lineotype? Or, happy thought, that Marconi may some day, unsuspectingly, catch the thing? If emanations can reach him from anywhere, why not from everywhere? Why not from the home of Teufelsdroch Weissnichtwo? [Carlyle's "Don't know where.."] -- John S. Ewart

Written and Compiled by John Joseph

Part Four:

The Bankruptcy of A. Lincoln's United States

For those of you new to the News, welcome. Be sure you are sitting down, before you begin reading this article. The following remarks are a matter of record for any one to see. This part of the series is not intended to describe in detail the whole picture, but to get your heads in the legal sand and dig up some more of the evidence yourselves. The intent is to give you a broad overview in understanding Lincoln's World and give you the reasons why We constantly tell you to get out of the trap of commerce. It is not the place for you to be. All is not lost, however, as you will see at the end of this article.

The Statutes-at-Large used in this article are available at your local law library; or, request them by calling Randy Lee. The Dictionary of Military Terms used in this article is currently available from the publisher. Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968) is still available from used book stores. Corpus Juris (C.J.) is a set of about 75 volumes from the 1920's and is getting harder and harder to find. It is an excellent resource and I highly recommend that your Christian Jural Society obtain a set.

The Congressional Record

March 17, 1993 --- H1303

(Mr. TRAFFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and expand his remarks.)

Mr. TRAFFICANT. "Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11. [Re-Organization.] Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest re-organization of any bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government.
"We are setting forth hopefully a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner's report that will lead to our demise."

To what bankruptcy was Mr. Trafficant referring? Like most of you in the law reform movement I first thought he was referring to the bankruptcy of 1933. But on further examination of that bankruptcy, I found it to be nothing more than a re-organization, and not a true bankruptcy. What happened in 1933 was that the gold had been taken from the states to prop up the United States in its re-organization after the Civil War and a disclosure that the State banks were part and parcel of the international arena. But by 1944, at Bretton Woods, the states, mostly the northern states, were bankrupt with the United States. The southern states were bankrupt- ed by the carpetbaggers and scalawags that invaded them at the close of Lincoln's hostitlities. The initial bankruptcy is not in this century. We must look further back in history because:

"Cujusque rei potissima pars principium est--The principal part of everything is the beginning." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2130.

The initial bankruptcy begins in and during Lincoln's War v. All Christian states. The following, which is from one of the best historical records of this century, Barker and Commager's Our Nation, spells it out quite explicitly:

"Few people imagined in the beginning what the economic burden of the war would be. When, at the end of 1861, the customary national income of 80 million dollars a year was measured against an expense of 2 million dollars a day, men began to see what was involved. Against this unexpected burden President Lincoln had been authorized to issue 1 billion [that's billion with a "b"] dollars in securities [10-40 bonds--ring a bell, any one?] for sale upon the market. These promises to pay at once fell below par. Bankers raised the rate of interest on loans to the United States government 2 per cent higher than the usual commercial rate. [Making money the old fashioned way--gouging the government in a funds transfer scheme--became common practice.]" Barker and Commager, Our Nation (1942), p. 405. [Insertions added.]

Looking at the above disclosure, the federal government at the time Lincoln warred on the South, had revenues of 80 million dollars a year. Balance this with a cost of 2 million dollars a day, or 730 million dollars for a year gives a net loss of 650 million dollars for just one year! There was not enough specie to go around. Now notice what the accounting books, from that time, state:

"Bank notes, certificates of deposit, checks, bills of exchange, etc., are in business [commerce] used as money, but are not money. They are representatives of money when an equivalent amount of gold and silver is lying idle, and the paper takes its place in the circulation. Otherwise, they are representatives of indebtedness merely, and the man who receives them in payment of any debt has only given up one claim for another which may perhaps be more available." Bryan and Stratton, Commercial Arithmetic (1868), p. 155. [Emphasis in original.]

So now what does Mr. "Honest" Abe do to make this war happen? After all, we are talking huge sums of money to buy supplies, feed soldiers, logistic support, etc., to "save the Union" using military power to protect and preserve a national commercial union. He violates Christian Law, by substituting commercial paper, fiction, for Biblical silver, substance, and sets the stage for a new religion:

"Money is an instrument to facilitate exchanges, and, strictly speaking, should possess an intrinsic value equivalent to that for which it is exchanged." Bryan and Stratton, Commercial Arithmetic (1868), p. 152. [Emphasis added. Commercial paper has no intrinsic value--but is based on the person's faith receiving it that he can get full value for it in specie, goods, or other valuable consideration. Notice the change in presuppositions.]
"In this dilemma President Lincoln asked Congress to issue paper money, known thereafter as greenbacks, in order to meet promptly the wages of soldiers as well as the enormous, and sometimes padded, bills for ammunition and other supplies. Congress agreed, but at once the greenbacks declined even more than the government's bonds. During a part of 1864 they were worth only 39 cents on the dollar. At the end of the war 433 million dollars of the greenbacks were in circulation.
"Throughout the year 1862 the credit of the federal government was in serious doubt, although Jay Cooke, the Philadelphia banker, induced other financiers all over the country to join him in clever devices [deception] to sell government securities [backed by all the property of the United States]." Barker and Commager, Our Nation (1942), p. 405. [Emphasis and insertions added.]
"But the government may issue its own notes or promises to pay and have them circulate as substitutes for coin, and may even make them a legal tender for the payment of debts, as has been done in the United States; but to maintain their value they must be redeemable on demand and a reserve in coin must be kept for their redemption. If they are not so redeemable, their purchasing power will depend upon [Godless, secular, earthly, and irreligious] faith in the government's final payment of what it has promised, [the new religion] and they will depreciate and fluctuate in value, having no solid basis to rest upon. No legal tender law or forced circulation will keep them stable or on the level with coin. The United States notes are pertinent to our subject because they have been for forty years a part of the currency of the country, have been declared a legal tender for all debts, and are treated as 'lawful money,' or the equivalent of coin, in banking reserves. Their volume has been unchanged at $346,681,016 for a quarter of a century on demand as pledged by the Government, and a fund of $150,000,000 in gold is held in the United States Treasury for the purpose. Nevertheless, they are not money, but notes that are reissued whenever paid, and our monetary system would be sounder without them, but for banking purposes they are now money." Fiske, The Modern Bank (1910), p. 23. [Insertion added.]
"The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender." Pr 22:7. [Emphasis added.]

See also 12 Stat. 259 & 12 Stat. 313 (1861), the "National Loan Acts," the first financial scam of record. Essentially Lincoln's government was a parasite feeding off the host of Christian government, to eventually kill the host, so that the foundation of the government would have to shift from Christianity to some other, less secure, foundation. Note also Mr. Fiske still admits that the goverment's notes are evidence of debt of a bankrupt--a difference of $194,681,016 is still unredeemable. And, he further admits that in commerce, today's banks are the temple of the god Mercurius--notice where faith is placed:

"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." Mt 6:19-21. [Emphasis added.] The child's poem of "Humpty Dumpty" is a truism.

Now multiply the above product by the length of his War against Christianity and you will just about have the total cost of the war, minus the 10 percent interest on those 10-40 bonds. In fact Lincoln's War ended with the "Federal" government 2.682 billion dollars in debt, exclusive of interest. Now what does this mean? It set up the means by which Christians, having no pastors grounded well in sound doctrine, wandered aimlessly and allowed the policy of debt to continue through Reconstruction.

"Historians have long been agreed that the evil consequences of congressional reconstruction far outweighed the good that it was intended to do." Barker and Commager, Our Nation (1942), p. 419. [Care to guess why?]

It also set up a system of slavery which the Founders of the federal government flatly rejected:

"FUNDING SYSTEM, Eng. law. The name given to a plan which provides that [*552] on the creation of a public loan, funds shall immediately be formed, and secured by law, for the payment of the interest, until the state shall redeem the whole, and also for the gradual redemption of the capital itself. This gradual redemption of the capital is called the sinking of the debt, and the fund so appropriated is called the sinking fund." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1859), vol. I, pp. 551-552.

"FUNDING SYSTEM. The practice of borrowing money to defray the expenses of government.
"In the early history of the system it was usual to set apart the revenue from some particular tax as a fund to the principal and interest of the loan. The earliest record the funding system is found in the history of Venice. In the year 1171, during a war between the republic and the Byzantine emperor Manual Commenas, a Venetian fleet ravaged the easter coasts, but, being detained by negotiations at Chios, suffered severely from the plague. The remnant of the expedition, returning, took with it the frightful pestilence, which ravaged Venice and produced a popular commotion in which the doge was killed. To carry on the war, the new doge, Sebiastian Giani, ordered a forced loan. Every citizen was obliged to contribute one-hundredth of his property, and he was to be paid by the state five per cent interest, the revenues being mortgaged to secure the faithful performance of the contract. To manage the business, commissioners were appointed, called the Chamber of Loans, which after the lapse of centuries grew into the Bank of Venice. Florence and other Italian republics practised the system; and it afterwards became general in Europe. Its object is to provide large sums of money for the immediate [*1324] exigencies of the state, which it would be impossible to raise by direct taxation.
"In England the funding system was inaugurated in the reign of William III. The Bank of England, like the Bank of Venice and the Bank of St. George at Genoa, grew out of it. In order to make it easy to procure money to carry on the war with France, the government proposed to raise a loan, for which, as usual, certain revenues were to set aside, and the subscribers were to be made a corporation, with exclusive banking privileges. The loan was rapidly subscribed for, and the Bank of England was the corporation which it brought into existence. It was formerly the practice in England to borrow money for fixed periods; and these loans were called terminable annuities. Of late years, however, the practice is different,-- loans being payable only at the option of the government; these are termed interminable annuities. The rate of interest on the earlier loans was generally fixed at three and a half per cent and sold at such a rate below par as to conform to the state of the money market. It is estimated that two-fifths of the entire debt of England consists of this excess over the amount of money actually received for it. The object of such a plan was to promote speculation and attract capitalists; and it is still pursued in France.
"Afterwards, however, the government receded from this policy, and, by borrowing at high rates, were enabled, when the rate of interest declined, by offering to pay off the loan, to reduce the interest materially. The national debt of England consists of many different loans, all of which are included in the term funds. Of these, the largest in amount and importance are the 'three per cent consolidated annuities,' or consols, as they are commonly called. They originated in 1751, when an act was passed consolidating several separate three per cent loans into one general stock, the dividends of which are payable on the 5th of January and 5th of July at the Bank of England. [Any one recall what happened July 4, 1776?] The bank being the fiscal agent of the government, pays the interest on most of the funds, and also keeps the transfer-books. When stock is sold, it is transferred on the books at the bank to the new purchaser, and the interest is paid to those parties in whose names the stock is registered, at the closing of the books a short time previous to the dividend day. Stock is bought and sold at the stock exchange geneally through brokers. Time sales, when the seller is not the actual possessor of the stock, are illegal, but common. They are usually made deliverable on certain fixed days, called accounting-days; and such transactions are called 'for account,' to distinguish them from the ordinary sales and purchases for cash. Stock-jobbers are persons who act as middlemen between sellers and purchasers. They usually fix a price at which they will sell and buy, so that sellers and purchasers can always find a market for stock, or can purchase it in such quantities as they may desire, without delay or inconvenience.
"In America the funding system [principally derived from the Lincoln administration] has been fully developed. The general government, as well as those of the states, have found it necessary to anticipate their revenue for the promotion of public works and other purposes. The many magnificent works of internal improvement which have added so much to the wealth of the country were mainly constructed with money borrowed by the states. The canals of New York, and many railroads in the western states, owe their existence to the system.
"The funding system enables the government to raise money in exigencies [war on drugs, poverty, homeless, etc.], and to spread over many years the taxation which would press too severely on one [see Const. U.S.A., Article I, section 8, clauses 1 & 2]. It affords a ready method of investing money on good security, and it tends to identify the interest of the state and the people. But it is open to many objections, the principal of which is that it induces statesmen to countenance expensive and oftentimes questionable projects who would not dare to carry out their plans were they forced to provide the means from direct taxation. McCulloch, Dict. of Comm.; Sewell, Banking." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), pp. 1323-1324. [Emphasis and insertion added.] [In other words, unless and until the loan is repaid, the property or works created by use of the loan are property of the lender.]

Many in this day and age thought Social Security was the original scam, by stealing from the young and giving to the old. Social Security is a means of dividing the Christian community, when the Christian community fails to fulfill its mandate from God. From the above testimony, the breakdown of Christianity had taken place before A. Lincoln came on the scene. The war would have wound down quicker had Christians spoken out more, and refused to participate in the carnage. But such was not the case. Pastors in the northern states were encouraging their poorer classes to enlist their sons as young as thirteen in the army for a paltry one hundred dollars in paper! What is the price of a young soul? What price should our Posterity pay for Our ignorance, and refusal to set things right in the eyes of God? Could any one assume to estimate such a price?

Notice the name Jay Cooke. This man was the wealthiest banker of his day, who saw Lincoln's War as an opportunity to make money from the misery of 8 million people in the south, and countless others in the north. Through this man, Salmon P. Chase made the following statement to the public:

"Salmon P. Chase did not hesitate to publish to the world through his factotum, [Jay] Cooke, that the debt was a 'first mortgage' upon all the property of the United States.
"This affects the title of the lands and leaves every man but a tenant upon his own property, who may be ousted by the mortgagee upon the first failure to meet the appointed instal[l]ment assessed in taxes. The mortgagee is pursuing the same oppressive and delusive course that is always pursued by every other mortgagee, with the intent to absorb the mortgagor." Judge Henry Clay Dean, Crimes of the Civil War (1868), p. 328. [Emphasis and insertion added.]

Ever wonder why internal revenue stamps appeared on property deeds and the like? Because the idea behind the war was not to keep the consociated union together, but to remove the Christian from his Lawful inheritance under God, and give it to the banker who now held the bonds issued by Lincoln, Lieber and Co., by bankrupting the Good and Lawful Christians and their general institutions. This brought in the Roman practice of emphyteusis [Ed. Note: See Issue the Seventh of The News]:

"In March 1865, the Congress created the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, commonly called the Freedmen's Bureau. Set up under the War Department, the bureau was headed by General Oliver O. Howard, and it had as its primary mission the care and welfare of the thousands of Southerners, white and black, whose lives had been uprooted by [*26] the war. Being without precedent, the bureau was one of the most important agencies of the Civil War era. With branches in every southern state, it established free schools and hospitals, relocated refugees under the provisions of the Homestead Act, distributed millions of food rations, provided legal assistance [forerunner of the Civil Rights Commission], operated as an employment agency [forerunner of the Employment Development Department], negotiated contracts for workers (making it the first national arbitration agency between labor and capital), and otherwise worked to facilitate the former slave's adjustment to his new status. The bureau was originally established to last just one year after the end of the war, but it was obvious that its services would be needed much longer." Wood, The Era of Reconstruction (1975), pp. 26. [Insertions added.]

Just what did this do to the "law of the land?" Who needs it! They said, "We have a better plan," under what later became known as "the federal law merchant," for the sake of "uniformity." This is clearly enunciated in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938), 304 U.S. 64, which overruled Swift v. Tyson (1842), 16 Pet. 1. Essentially, in 1842 the court upheld the law merchant concerning two types of bills of exchange: inland and foreign. Inland are those which never cross state lines; foreign are those from another state or nation. By an amendment to the National Banking Act of 1864 at 13 Stat. 484, a switch had been done. Lincoln's Congress now desired to impose a 10 percent tax on the issue of commercial paper from State banks paid out by national banks. In other words, once the State banks' notes had crossed venues into the national system, it was feasible for Congress to tax their issues. This was clearly upheld in Veazie Bank v. Venno (1869), 8 Wall.(75 U.S.) 533, 19 L.Ed.2d 482. Essentially, this tax ended the issuance of State banks' commercial paper and by 1869 there were only 247 State banks existing. Many others had decided to join the national system, where "money" could be made. Did Frankie Dee Roosevelt do a mean and nasty thing in '33? Certainly not! He did what the law required him to do--he made enemies of all citizens of the United States in the "Trading With the Enemy Act" of 1917, and confiscated their gold. If you were Christian, you would not have put your faith in secular man, evidenced by having an account at "your" bank:

"Governments never do anything by accident; if government does something you can bet it was carefully planned." Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

On February 25, 1863, Lincoln's Congress created the Comptroller of the Currency, by the Sherman Act (12 Stat. 665), which provided also for the third time, national banks. This act was repealed and replaced by the National Banking Act of June 3, 1864, (13 Stat. 99) which is still on the books. These acts placed a new weapon of war in the field--the national bank. These banks, were and are under the supervision of the "comptroller of the currency" an office in the treasury department. The word "comptroller" has some very interesting definitions:

"COMPTROLLER. A public officer of a state or municipal corporation, charged with certain duties in relation to the fiscal affairs of the same, principally to examine and audit the accounts of collectors of the public money, to keep records, and report the financial situation from time to time. There are also officers bearing this name in the treasury department of the United States [See 13 Stat. 99 (1864).] Beneficial Loan Soc. of New Orleans v. Straus, La.App., 148 So. 85, 87.
"COMPTROLLER IN BANKRUPTCY. An officer in England, whose duty it is to receive from the trustee in each bankruptcy his accounts and periodical statements showing the proceedings in the bankruptcy, and also to call the trustee to account for any misfeasance, neglect, or omission in the discharge of his duties. Robs.Bankr. 13; Bankr.Act 1869, 55." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 359.

Thus far, we have established the main reason for the War. It was not slavery, but commerce with a strange form of worship.

Mr. Lincoln, so far, has committed treason. Until next month, may God Bless you Richly in Christ Jesus, Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour.

New 'Third Edition' of 'The Book of the Hundreds' now available

Effective May 1st, The Christian Jural Society Press has available to fellow-Christians, the new Third Edition of 'The Book of the Hundreds.'

The new Third Edition has been rewritten and expanded from the earlier Second Edition. It is now 251 pages with 515 footnotes, an increase of 74 pages and 339 footnotes.

Part One of The Book of the Hundreds, formerly titled, "Background Studies" is now titled, "Prolegomena to the Current Martial Rule" and has been expanded by 57 pages and 219 footnotes. The documentation for Part One now reaches 391 footnotes from official sources such as; court cases, Commentaries on the Law, The Congressional Record, Senate Reports, Attorney General Opinions, reputable historical works, and many others.

The basic thrust of Part One, which has not changed from earlier editions, is that the current state of 'law' in America, at all levels of government, is that pertaining to military governments, known as 'civil affairs,' and that the Constitution is no longer the binding Law of the Land on such governments.

Indeed, the evidence in this new edition is now so overwhelming, that no man of sound mind can deny that we live under military style governments and martial rule, from the Federal to the local level. It can be stated with safety that no other book in the law reform movement has so heavily documented its premise. This factor is important since few, if any, of the other law reform groups across the land have paid any attention to it, and many have criticized 'The King's Men' for presenting such an idea. Very well, let them answer the evidence presented herein!

Part One not only establishes clearly the original premise of The Book of the Hundreds, but has shown that the effort to 'militarize' America is far more comprehensive than at first believed.

The evidence shows that, beginning as early as the Presidency of Thomas Jefferson, the New England states began to realize that the power of the Presidency was, in principle, virtually uncontrolled because of the Constitution's failure to fence in his power as it had that of Congress. It was Jefferson's abuse of the President's power that alarmed the New England commercial interests and sparked the Secessionist movement in the North, long before it ever gained a foothold in the South.

From the War of 1812, it becomes clear that the Northern states, principally in New England, financed and managed the subversion of the South and pressured Southern Congressmen and Senators into abandoning the Federal government, solely to end the control of the Constitution on commerce in the North.

Further, the evidence is presented to show that the North actively financed, recruited, and supported a number of underground efforts to subvert the South, in order to 'encourage' the Southern states to secede. From John Brown's raid on the Armory at Harper's Ferry to the creation of the Knights of the Golden Circle, all were financed and supported by Northern banking and commercial interests dedicated to the destruction of the Constitution for the united States of America.

Last, the evidence is presented to prove that martial law, military government and the military courts created thereby, were deliberately continued after Lincoln's War vs. All Christian States, through 'The Reconstruction Acts' and 'Civil Rights Acts,' solely because it benefited the power of the Federal government and the commercial interests which funded Lincoln's War in the first place.

The record is clear that Lincoln created the debt funding system to expand the Federal power, which is still in use in this country today. Among his more ingenious forms of funding the War was the issuance of '10-40 Bonds' from which the infamous 1040 Income Tax Form gets its name. We can now establish the bankruptcy of the Federal government as beginning in 1864 with Lincoln's creation of 'The National Banking Act.'

The need for Christians to band together in a common cause to establish and maintain Christian Jural Societies is now greater than ever.

Part Two of this new Third Edition has included several changes in the philosophy of Christian Jural Societies. Gone, for example, are the oligarchic distinctions between Fellows and Members.

And, a new part has been added that provides the documentation of the authority of Christians to form Lawful Christian Jural Societies. This addition has been long needed in Part Two and forms the basis of a new publication to be offered soon, on 'The Right of Christians to be Self-governing Men." This work will be available in late Summer of 1997.

This edition of Part Two seeks a return to the form of government more closely adapted to Scripture in general and the Book of Judges, in particular. The idea is, to reduce the likelihood of one man, over the process of time, from accumulating power unto himself and re-imposing a system of military government on Christians.

Thus, Part Two of The Book of the Hundreds on the formation of the Christian Jural Society and its maintenance, represents a step forward. With the rapid formation of new Christian Jural Societies across the continental United States, and in Alaska, The Republic of Hawai'i and Canada, it has been anticipated by many for quite some time. However, it is by no means, the last step in this on-going process.

Part Three of The Book of the Hundreds has traditionally been reserved for the highly successful Non-statutory Abatement process, and in this respect, this new Third Edition is no exception.

However, as Parts One and Two of this new edition, the Non-Statutory Abatement process has also been improved by a substantial margin, both in its applicability and in the level of legal and political arguments brought to the abatement process.

Thus, the abatements now raise the 'political question' and 'conflict of law' to the effect that; does a bankrupt entity have any law? The answer is, of course, no. The bankruptcy argument cannot be raised in any existing military or statutory court because such an argument is forbidden. This does not prevent anyone from raising the argument in at-law process, because, in Christian common law there is no privilege that allows one to avoid an argument that may be embarrassing or conclusively detrimental to either a demandant or defendant. In other words, there are no ultra vires rights in the Christian common law and no one is immune to the force of Law.

New information has been discovered, at least in the constitutional law of California, that the 'county clerk' is the ex officio clerk of the superior court, that is, courts of record, i.e., courts that sit at common law. If such is the case and the procedure for utilizing the county clerk can be resurrected, the majority of the problems associated with serving and executing common law process, including Writs of Entry to Land, Writs of Trespass, Habeas Corpus, Prohibition, Mandamus, etc., is greatly simplified. In addition, the county clerk's office is empowered to execute the process through the county sheriff's office.

All in all, the new Third Edition of The Book of the Hundreds is well worth adding to the lawful arsenal of all Good and Lawful Christians as they seek to advance the Crown Rights of King Jesus.

One last note. In previous editions of The Book of the Hundreds, a discount was offered to those who had acquired an earlier edition. Due to the extended length and added pages of this new Third Edition, and the added cost for publication created thereby, the discount will no longer be available, except in lots above ten.

For further information on this new Third Edition call 818-347-7080 or FAX to 818-313-8814.

Civil Rights:

The Road to Serfdom

Today's typical American believes that the Civil Rights Acts are special legislation that apply only to non-whites. With this level of ignorance we are lost without a hope. In fact, the civil right acts apply to everyone, regardless of color, race, etc., and exclude only those Christians who act in the mode and character of a Christian.

How has this happened?

Previous to Lincoln's War an infamous case came before the United States Supreme Court which is known as the Dred Scott case. Depending upon which 'expert' one talks to, the case has various meanings.

Those on the left beat their breasts at the mere mention of the case and cry out against the idea of a Negro as a slave and 'mere piece of chattel property.' This is how they interpret the case in the light of their own presupposition and socio-political agenda. In fact, the case did not define slaves as mere pieces of chattel property because slaves had always been considered as chattel.

Those on the right, especially those with an elitists mind set, interpret the same case as saying that black people have no rights, or at least, if they have any rights, such rights are not equal to those of a white man.

Again, this is mere rhetoric that bears little relationship to the facts.

The real flaw in the case, however, is that is lumps together two separate classes of people under one heading, namely black slaves and 'people of color' and then asserts that such Negroes cannot bring a case before the Supreme Court, because they have no standing in the Constitution. If, however, one reads the case with just a modicum of objectivity, one will see that the case was never decided on its merits, nor was there ever an actual majority decision made in the case.

Subsequent hearings on the same case have raked it over red hot coals and dismantled it, because the argument used by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney in writing his opinion, though lengthy, are so shallow and specious. How can a United States Supreme Court Chief Justice do such a thing? Answer: if Mr. Taney had done anything else he would have suffered a great personal loss of his own slaves.

The subsequent hearings mentioned above, make the clear and accepted distinction in law between a slave and a free person of color. In both the North and South, there were 'free persons of color' who were not slaves, who owned land, and voted in elections as soon as they reached the proper age in the State's voting laws. In short, they exercised all the rights of Good and Lawful Christians in common with white people:

"In 1810 New Orleans had 8,001 white persons, 5,727 free persons of color, and 10, 824 slaves. Aggregate Amount of Persons Within the United States in 1810. (Wash. D.C. 1811) p. 82. A battalion of gens de couleur fought at the Battle of New Orleans in 1815. Rousseve, The Negro in Louisiana 24-29 (1937). In 1830 there were 16,710 free persons of color and 109,588 slaves in Louisiana. In 1860 free men of color owned real property and slaves valued at 50,000,000. Carter 25. A person of color was presumed to be free." Adelle v. Beauregard, 1810, 1 Mar.(O.S.) 183.

" Historically, therefore, color and not education or any thing else has always been determinative of a voter's qualifications in Louisiana." United States v. Louisiana (1963), 225 F.Supp. 353, 363

But, in spite of contrary opinions on the Dred Scott case and its non-Christian presuppositions, the history of America is written as if the case were the last word on the topic when it comes to the Civil Rights issue. In other words, everyone acts as if the case were real Law.

The alleged 14th Amendment was the direct result of the Dred Scott decision and all subsequent Civil Rights legislation has been built on the assumption that Dred Scott stated the law in the matter. This opened the door to Lincoln and his crony abolitionists to 'create a benefit,' i.e., in granting to the black man the same rights like or as those of a white man, but emanating from a source other than God. This was of vital importance to Lincoln's plan because:

"Although it has been vigorously asserted that the rights specified in the Amends. 1 to 8 are among the privileges and immunities protected by this clause, and although this view has been defended by many distinguished jurists, including several justices of the federal Supreme Court, that court holds otherwise and asserts that it is the character [whether Christian or lawless] of the right claimed [or exercised], whether specified as above or not, that is controlling." State v. Felch (1918), 105 A. 23, 92 Vt. 477.

In simple terms, the source of the right claimed determines the character of the person exercising it as well as who can hear a controversy based on that right.

One may claim to be a Christian, but, if he is involved in a controversy based on a right given or created by the State (Civil Rights), the State alone decides the controversy based on that right according to the law or whim of the State:

"The Federal Civil Rights Statutes created rights which may be protected by federal courts in the exercise of their normal equity jurisdiction." Progress Development Corp. v. Mitchell (1960), 182 F.Supp. 681, 711.7

If the source of the Right is from God, the State has no venue, jurisdiction, or any other access to the Good and Lawful Christian in a controversy based on the God-given right and the case is then decided on the basis of God's Law, usually within the forms provided by the common law. Thus:

"The party who brings a suit is master to decide what law he will rely upon." Reynolds v. Royal Mail Lines, Inc. (1957), 147 F.Supp. 223, aff'd 254 F.2d 55, cert. denied 358 U.S. 818, 79 S.Ct. 28, 3 L.Ed.2d 59.

If one brings a Title 42 suit to the court, since Title 42 embodies rights given by the Federal power, the Federal power alone has the right to decide the case on the basis of its own laws and rules. But, if one brings an action at common law concerning a case over the vested Rights of a Good and Lawful Christian, then the Law of God and the precedents in Christian common law will decide the case.

In effect, we are back to the religious argument again. The god or God of the system determines the character of both the right and the person claiming the right. Further, one cannot mix rights from one source with those of another source. One cannot assert a common law Right from God in the State's courts, or in a Title 42 suit.

"there can be no tolerance in a law system for another religion. Every law-system must maintain its existence by hostility to every other law-system and to alien religious foundations, or else it commits suicide. Institutes of Biblical Law, by Rousas John Rushdoony, Published by The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co. (1973), pp. 5-6.

Or, as the Scripture puts it:

"No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:13.

But, the key to the Civil Rights question is, what do they cost The source of the right determines its cost and what is required of the man. Will he be taxed, or what?:

"Civil rightsare not connected with the organization and administration of government." Winnet v. Adams, 71 Neb. 817, 99 N. W. 681.

"As otherwise defined, civil rights are appertaining to a person in virtue of his citizenship in a state or community. Rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action. Also a term applied to certain rights secured to citizens of the United States by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution and various acts of Congress made in pursuance thereof." State of Iowa v. Railroad Co., C. C. Iowa, 37 F. 498, 3 L.R.A. 554; State v. Powers, 51 N.J.L. 432, 17 A. 969.

Ipso facto, a citizen of the U.S. automatically has Civil Rights whether he wants them or not:

"Where the power of taxation exercise by Congress, is warranted by the Constitution, as to mode and subject [citizenship], it is necessarily, unlimited in its nature. Congress may prescribe the basis [citizenship], fix the rates, and require payment as it may deem proper. Within the limits of the Constitution it is supreme in its action. No power of supervision or control is lodged in either of the other departments of the government." Pacific Insurance Co. v. Soule , 7 Wall 433, 19 L.Ed. 95, 98.

And, such rights are taxable without limitation:

"In dealing with the scope of the taxing power the question has sometimes been framed in terms of whether something can be taxed as income under the 16th Amendment. This is an inaccurate formulation of the question and has led to much loose thinking on the subject. The source of the taxing power is not the 16th Amendment; it is Article I, 8 of the Constitution." Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1959), 32 T.C. 653, 659.

"American citizenship implies not only rights but also duties, not the least of which is the payment of taxes." U.S. v. Lucienne D'Hotelle de Benitez Rexach (1977), 558 F.2d 37. [See also Cook v. Tait (1924), 265 U.S. 47, 44 S.Ct. 444, 68 L.Ed. 895 & United States of America v. Slater (1982), 545 F.Supp. 179, 182.]

'The Road to Serfdom' will be continued next month.

To Be or Not To Be: Home-less

Since the time of Lincoln's war against all Christian states, which brought about the commercial incorporation of a bank- rupt 'United States' and the 'permanent state of national emergency' created thereby, the meaning and implication of many words in the English language have been changed to suit the purpose of those who write and enforce the foreign commercial codes of the lex mercatoria, better known as Uniform Commercial Codes, The Code of Military Justice, Internal Revenue Codes, Revised Statutes, Restatements of the Law, Code of Federal Regulations, Motor Vehicle Codes, ad nauseam--just to name a few.

One of those words is 'home.'

(Note: In the following, all underlining and bolding is done by me for emphasis).

"As relating to deductions of expenses for carrying on a trade or business while living away from home, 'home' within I.R.C. 162(a)(2) is defined as taxpayer's principal place of business." Ellwein v. U.S., C.A.N.D., 778 F.2d. 506, 509.
"Since travel expenses of an employee are deductible only if the taxpayer is away from home, the deductibility of such expenses rests upon the definition of 'tax home.' The IRS position is that 'tax home' is the business location, post or station (military terms) of the taxpayer." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., page 1461.
Home: "That place in which one in fact resides with the intention of residence, or in which he has so resided, and with regard to which he retains residence or to which he intends to return. Place where a person dwells and which is the center of his domestic, social and civil life." Restatement of Conflicts, Second, 12.
Home: "That place or country in which one in fact resides with the intention of residence, or in which he has so resided, and with regard to which he retains either residence or the intention of residence." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 1449.
"'Home' and 'domicil' do not correspond, yet 'home' is the fundamental idea of 'domicil.' The law takes the conception of 'home,' and moulding it by means of certain fictions and technical rules to suit its own requirements, calls it 'domicil.' Or perhaps this may be best expressed, by slightly altering Westlake's statement, 'Domicil is, then, the legal conception of residence,' etc., and saying, 'Domicil is, then, the legal conception home.' 'Domicil' expresses the legal relation existing between a person and the place where he has, in contemplation of law, his permanent home.' Jac. Dom. c. 3, 72.
"A person having a dwelling house in each of two towns of the state may have his home in one town for the purposes of taxation, although he spends the greater portion of the year in the other, and is there on the first of May; In this case domicil for taxation and home are treated as synonymous. The principal place of abode of a man and his family, when it is only a temporary abode, is not his home in the sense here required; Thayer v. City of Boston, 124 Mass. 147, 26 Am.Rep. 650.
"There are three concepts of especial importance in connection with the presence of a person within a state: residence, domicile, and citizenship. Residence implies something more than mere transient visitation. It involves a more or less fixed abode but ignores the intent of continuance or political affiliation. An alien may have residence without domicile or citizenship. One may have more than one residence at a time. Domicile implies civil status. Many civil rights depend upon it-e.g. the course of descent of personal property is governed by the law of the person's domicile at death. Every natural person has a domicile, but only one. His domicile of origin persists until a new one is acquired by choice. A domicile of choice is acquired by the concurrence of physical presence (usually residence) and an intent to make the place his more or less permanent home. No particular length of previous residence is essential, nor need one affirmatively intend always to remain there. But there must be no present intent of going to live elsewhere. Citizenship implies political status. It may or may not confer suffrage or any other particular incident but it does imply incorporation into the body politic (corporate citizen). The requirements vary from state to state. Often they involve much the same qualifications as does domicile. But the two should not be confused." THE NATIONAL LAW LIBRARY, published by Collier, Volume III p. 358 footnote.
"A hand from Washington, D.C. will be stretched out and placed upon every man's business; the eye of the Federal inspector will be in every man's counting house. The law will of necessity have inquisitorial features, it will provide penalties. It will create a complicated machinery. Under it businessmen will be hauled into courts distant from their homes. Heavy fines imposed by distant and unfamiliar tribunals will constantly menace the taxpayer. An army of Federal inspectors, spies and detectives will descend upon the state. They will compel men of business to show their books and disclose the secrets of their affairs. They will dictate forms of bookkeeping. They will require statements and affidavits. On the one hand the inspector can blackmail the taxpayer and on the other, he can profit by selling his secret to his competitor." Richard E. Byrd, Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates (1910).
"Domicil as defined by the American Law Institute (copyright holders of the U.C.C.): 'Domicil is the place with which a person has a settled connection for legal purposes, either because his home is there or because the place is assigned to him by the law.' [Conflict of Laws, Restatement, 9.] The only discoverable explanation for the attribution of a domicil to a corporation is the desire for symmetry in the law. The law has ordained that every person must have a domicil; a corporation, it is said, is a legal person, and therefore, even though non-physical (a fiction), must have a domicil.
"The difficulties encountered in the extension of this concept to a corporation have been formalistically reconciled by Dicey as follows: 'The concept of a home or domicil, depending as it does on the combination of residence and intention to reside, is, in its primary sense, applicable only to human beings; but by a fiction of law, an artificial domicil may be attributed to legal beings (corporate citizens), or corporations. [Dicey, Conflict of Laws (5th Ed.) 136. In Conflict of Laws, Restatement (Am. Law Inst.), Proposed Final Draft No. 1, 42, comment C, it was said: 'The nature of a corporation makes it of course unable to acquire a home, and therefore a domicil of choice. It is however requisite for several purposes that a corporation should have a domicil; and it must therefore have a place assigned to it by law as a domicil (section 10), or in other words have a domicil by operation of law.' In Final Draft No. 4 (March, 1934), section 42, as to the domicil of a corporation was eliminated, and the following comment was added to section 10, defining domicil in general: 'f. Corporation. A corporation has no home in the sense in which the term is used in connection with a human being. The state of incorporation is, for fixing legal relations of a corporation, analogous to the state of domicil of an individual.' But in the Restatement as finally approved by the Institute in May, 1934, the section attributing a domicil to a corporation was included as section 41, and Comment C, above, was appended to this section.]"
"Under the urge of attaining symmetry in the law, a domicil has been assigned to an incorporated group because it is classified as a legal person, but it is said that an unincorporated association, not being a legal person, is incapable of having a domicil." [Conflict of Laws, Restatement, (Am. Law Inst.) 41.]

In the 14th Century, John Wycliffe, 'The Morning Star of the Reformation,' warned fellow-Christians of the un-Godly nature of the Roman Imperial Law, as reported by the Dean of Harvard Law School, Roscoe Pound, to wit:

"It is not an accident that the first reformer in English legal thought was also the first reformer in English religious thought. John Wycliffe is known for his resistance to authority in the church and his translation of the Scriptures to bring them home to the common man. But in his tract De Officio Regis he attacked authority in law and asserted the sufficiency of English case law--for such it fairly had become--against the venerable legislation of Justinian and the sacred decretals of the Popes [who represent the Roman Imperial law]. Let us remember what this meant according to the theories of that time. Whatever the fact, the theory of the king's judges was that they administered the common custom of England, the customary modes of action of Englishmen in their relations with other. The academic theory as to the Roman law was that the Corpus Iuris Civilis, as legislation of the Emperor Justinian, was binding upon people whose rulers were taken to be successors of Augustus. The theory as to the canon law was that all jurisdiction was divided between the spiritual and the temporal, that in matters spiritual, the temporal authority was totally incompetent, and that the church, whose mouthpiece was the Pope, had an absolute legislative power within this field. 'The Pope,' says Boniface VIII in the fourteenth century, 'holds all laws in his breast.' Wycliffe said boldly that men might well be saved 'though many laws of the Pope had never been spoken,' that Roman law was 'heathen men's law' and that [*40] there was no more reason and justice in the civil [misnomer, should be "imperial"] law of Rome than in the civil law of England. He appealed from authority to the local custom of England, from the rules imposed externally by Roman law and the Pope, to the rules which Englishmen made for themselves by their everyday conduct. But this was the same position which Wycliffe took with respect to religion. In law and in religion he appealed to the individual and for the individual against authority." Roscoe Pound (Dean of Harvard Law School), The Spirit of the Common Law (1921), page 39. [Emphasis and insertions added.]

This last statement above makes it quite clear that John Wycliffe knew that any thing connected with the Roman or English civil law (or any civil law) was strictly for human beings and natural persons (at that time, called 'heathen men') and should be avoided at all cost by all Christians.

The more modern statements above make it quite clear that anyone who says, "Yes, I have a home," "Yes, I'm a resident," "I demand my civil rights," etc., becomes a surety within that 'heathen man's law'; a surety known as a 'a person with a home for taxable purposes,' 'a resident with a permanent place of business,' 'a natural person with a domicile,' 'a corporate citizen,' 'a homeowner,' ' a consumer,' etc.

It is absolutely imperative for all Good and Lawful Christian Men and Woman to learn and understand the words, such as 'home,' that the 'heathen men' and human beings have 'incorporated' into their 'created' codes, rules and regulations.

We must begin to get our noses into the books created by the enemies of Christ and Christendom, in order to know and understand those enemies, but at the same time remembering that the Word of God is the Supreme Book for all Knowledge, Understanding and Wisdom. ?

"Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls." Jeremiah 6:16

Where is the Authority? you ask.

Part One

by Robert

The following is reprinted from 'The Monmouth county Christian Jural Society Newsletter,' which is an excellent monthly newsletter published by 'The Monmouth county Christian Jural Society, First House of Delegates,' in New Jersey. We hope you find it most edifying-- as we do.

Remember that because you ask, "where is the Authority"?, or "Who is the Authority"? behind the Law that We should use to govern Our lives as Good and Lawful Christian Men and Women is why We are plagued with the problems created for us by the ungodly. We deserve all the burdens We get for not knowing Who the Authority is.

Being Good and Lawful Christian Men and Women, We live Our lives according to Scripture, and Scripture being translated for Us into The King James Version Bible, the only Bible that has standing in Law. And the first chapter of Genesis, verse one reads,

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

This first verse says from whom all Authority comes; Authority comes from God, for by His Authority heaven and earth were formed. And We read in Job 26:7,

"He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing."

Think about that! the earth hangs on nothing, but by His Authority only. And We read as it is written in Isaiah 44:24-25,

"Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and He that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by Myself; That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh there knowledge foolish."

The evolutionists and others have been trying to disprove the first verse of Genesis, chapter one, for many score of years without even coming close. Looking at those nine words, The first verse in the Bible, as easy as they are to read and understand, have the Authority to withstand time, the Scientists, the Evolutionists, the Atheists, the Darwinists, the New Agers, the Bible critics, the ungodly, etc., and just think, this is only the beginning first verse of Scripture. Good and Lawful Christian Men and Women know, by faith, their Heavenly Father is the Authority for the Lawful Christian lives they live through His Word. And His Word being in their hearts is obeyed above all other. So, when the question is asked, "where is the Authority"?, and for to read an answer to that question, We need only to read Scripture, and start by reading the very first verse, Genesis 1:1.

Genesis 1:1, "well, what does that have to do with me"?, you might be asking yourself. Or you might be asking yourself, "how does that help me"? You must understand the beginning, otherwise how can you possibly understand the end. You must first understand that God, the Creator, is Authority for everything, and without His Word we can do nothing by ourselves, and are left at the mercy of the ungodly. Psalm 24:1-5 reads,

"The Earth is the Lords, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. For He hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods. Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? or who shall stand in His holy place? He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully. He shall receive the blessing from the Lord, and righteousness from the God of his salvation."

Now ask yourself this question, "do I have clean hands and a pure heart? (In other words, do you live your life as a Good and Lawful Christian Man or Woman). If your answer is 'no' you do not, how can you expect to receive any blessing from the Lord? How can you expect to receive righteousness and salvation through His Word? How can you expect to be protected from the ungodly? How can you expect to rebuke the temptations put in front of you by them? Well, read His Word in Scripture. Remember and understand this about Scripture: Scripture is God's notice to all, and therefore, there is no excuse for not knowing how to have clean hands and a pure heart, or for asking, "Where is the Authority"?

Have you ever realized that even the ungodly are, at times, given authority from the Lord? They are allowed to create burdens for us (punishment) for not having clean hands. Isaiah 45:6-7 reads, "That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside Me. I am the Lord, and there is none else. I form the light, and create the darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." If you noticed, verse seven, in part, tells us that the Lord creates evil also. The many burdens we receive through the ungodly is one of His ways of letting us know we are not living as Good and Lawful Christian Men and Women.

Now it has to be said simply and plainly at this point--God is the Authority, first, last, and forever!! He is the Authority over us, and for us, as to how we should live our lives through His Word. And Scripture tells us exactly that; Jeremiah 17:5 reads,

"Thus sayeth the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord."

And, Deuteronomy 10:17 reads,

"For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible God, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward."

And, Jeremiah 17:10 reads,

"I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruits of his doings."

And, Jeremiah 33:3 reads,

"Call unto Me, and I will answer thee, and show thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not."

Scripture says it all for us, but we must have faith in the Lord's Word, in that, we live our lives according to it, for to receive His Blessings.

Scripture says He does not take any reward. But what He does want is for us to live as Good and Lawful Christian Men and Women through His Word.... and His Word is the Authority to do so.

(Continued in Issue the Nineteenth)

IN THE FIELD. "Any place, on land or water, apart from permanent cantonments or fortifications where military operations are being conducted." Ex parte Gerlach (D.C.) 247 F. 616, 617; Ex Parte Jochen (D.C.) 257 F. 200, 205; Ex parte Mikell (D.C.) 253 F. 817, 819; Hines v. Mikell (C.C.A.) 259 F. 28,30.

'in the field'

"New administrative undertakings of the [Civil] war and post-war years introduced the National Government permanently into fresh areas of activity. Among these were the first Morrill Act of 1862, which made land grants for agricultural and mechanical colleges in each State; the establishment of a Commissioner (later Secretary) of Agriculture in the same year, and of a Commissioner of Education [which later under Carter, was made a cabinet post] in 1867; and in 1870 the creation, under the Attorney-General, of a Department of Justice to supervise from Washington the activities of the United States attorneys in the field. More important for the business world was the establishment of a National banking system [looking to do away with inland bills of exchange in the states] in 1863. This created for the first time a corps of National bank examiners. In a follow-up move, Congress used the taxing power to oust the States from the field of chartering banks of issue. Soon thereafter there was a uniform currency [under the Federal Reserve Act of 1913]." Report of the Commission of Intergovernmental Relations (1955), pp. 24-25.

"Every taxpayer is a cestui qui trust having sufficient interest in the preventing abuse of the trust to be recognized in the field of this court's prerogative jurisdiction as a relator in proceedings to set sovereign authority in motion" In Re Bolens (1912), 135 N.W. 164.

"When a rebellion becomes organized, and attains such proportions as to be able to put a formidable military force in the field, it is usual for the established government to concede to it some belligerent rights. This concession is made in the interests of humanity, to prevent the cruelties which would inevitably follow mutual reprisals and retaliations. But belligerent rights, as the terms import, are rights which exist only during war; and to what extent they shall be accorded to insurgents depends upon the considerations of justice, humanity, and policy (dictated by the bondholders) controlling the government." Williams v. Bruffy (1877), 96 U.S. 176, 187

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

No man can have lived in the world, without having observed how frequently it happens, that events which, at the time they occurred, were the source of bitter disappointment, have proved very blessings to us; and that many of these things which have been most anxiously desired, but which it has pleased God to withhold from us, would have proved, if granted, the origin of endless evils. The recollection of such circumstances in our own individual case, while it renders us deeply grateful to divine providence for the past, should make us trust with perfect confidence to the same infinite wisdom for the future.

All for the Best

It would be difficult to find an anecdote, perhaps, bearing more strongly on what we have just observed, than one which is mentioned in the life of Bernard Gilpin, that great and good man; whose pious labors in the counties of Westmoreland, Cumberland, Northumberland, and York, at the period of the Reformation, procured for him the title by which he is still remembered in those parts, "the apostle of the north." It appears that it was a frequent saying of his, when exposed to losses or troubles, "Ah! Well; God's will be done; it is all for the best."

Towards the close of Queen Mary's reign, Bernard Gilpin was accused of heresy before the merciless Bishop Bonner; he was speedily apprehended, and he left his quiet home, "nothing doubting," as he said, "that it was all for the best," though he was well aware of what might await him; for we find him giving directions to his steward, "to provide him a long garment that he might go the more comely to the stake, at which he would be burnt."

While on his way to London, by some accident, he had a fall and broke his leg, which put a stop for some time to his journey. The persons in whose custody he was, took occasion thence maliciously to retort upon his habitual remark. "What," said they, "is this all for the best? You say, master, that nothing happens which is not for our good; think you your broken leg is so intended?"

"Sirs, I make no question but it is," was the meek reply, and so in truth it proved; for, before he was able to travel, Queen Mary died, the persecution ceased, and he was restored to his liberty and friends.

Reminiscences of Dr. Payson

The following illustration was used in familiar conversation with a friend: -- "God deals somewhat with us as we do with our children. When I am in my study, engaged in writing or meditation, if I hear one of my children cry, I do not go to it immediately. The occasion of its tears may be a mere momentary trouble, capable of being removed by others, or from which it may be diverted by some toy. But if its cry continue, and I find that nothing but my presence will pacify it, I leave every thing and go to it. So when the children of God begin to cry for His presence, He does not answer them immediately, but waits to see whether the cry is repeated; and if He finds that His child will be satisfied with nothing but his Father's presence, this Blessing will not be long withheld."

During his last illness, a friend coming into his room, remarked, familiarly, "Well, I am sorry to see you lying here on your back."

"Do you not know what God puts us on our backs for?" said Dr. Payson, smiling.

"No," was the answer.

"In order that we may look upward."

Issue the Seventeenth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Scripture and The Law Merchant, Part One...

Admissions and Confessions, Part Five...

Minimum Contacts...

Winning in Court? The Pro Se Way, or How to Cook Your Goose --Their Way!!...

The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men, conclusion...

The History of The Law of Nature, A Law Review, Part One...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Scripture and the Law Merchant

Everyone who reads Our newsletter is familiar with Our stand against Christians involving themselves in commerce, or the law of the merchant, known in law as the lex mercatoria. With this article we begin a series on what Scripture has to say about the merchant and his practices.

Before we get into the study of words in the Scripture that deal with commerce, we must first understand that the nation of Israel occupied a very unique position, geographically speaking, in the plan of God.

Judea sat squarely in the middle of the land bridge that connected Asia, Africa, India, and Southern Europe and through it, passed all the trading caravans of the East. The City of Jerusalem was also uniquely located on a high plain in the center of Judea which, historically, could only be attacked by the military forces of other nations, in two ways, both of which are related to the plain that provided access to the City from the North.

There were two entrances to this plain from which an invading army could attack the City of Jerusalem. The first was relatively close to Jerusalem and was called, the north entrance. The second entrance to the plain was much further north and was called the uttermost northern entrance. From these two and only these two entrances to the plain north of Jerusalem all the armies in history have launched their attacks on Jerusalem.

Jerusalem has never been attacked from any other way than from these two northern entrances to the plain and this is why the City had, almost from the beginning of its occupation, three walls on the North side of Jerusalem, but only one wall on the East, West, and South. On the East, the City is protected by the deep gorge known as the Wadi Kidron. On the West and South are nearly impenetrable mountains. The only other way into the City from the Southwest is by a very narrow crack in the mountains which could be protected against any attack by a mere handful of men.

When the Scripture makes a prophecy against the City, it will use the well-known phrases such as; they shall come out of the North, and they shall come from the uttermost North, to denote which pass the invading armies will use to gain access to the plain. This is true, whether the army invades from a northern, eastern, southern, or western nation relative to Israel.

This extensive description of the strategic character of Jerusalem points out that whoever controls Jerusalem, controls all trade and commerce between the continents mentioned above and it also explains why the Hebrews, and later, the Jews, became so well known for their dealings in trade and commerce.

The word merchant and its related words are found in Scripture as; merchandise (22 times), merchant (12 times), merchantmen (2 times), merchants (28 times) and merchants' (1 time). In these 65 citations the words are translated from more than a dozen root words in both the Greek and Hebrew.

Merchandise

This word is translated from twelve root words, nine in Hebrew and three in Greek and is found in the following verses. Deut. 21:14, 24:7; Prov. 3:14, (twice), 31:18; Isaiah 23:18 (twice), 45:14; Ezek. 26:12, 27:9, 15, 24, 27 (twice), 33, 34, and 28:16; Matt. 22:5; John 2:16; 2 Peter 2:3; Revelations 8:11,12.

The first cite in Deuteronomy 21:14 occurs within the context of laws on how to deal with female prisoners of war. If the Israelite chose, he could take a female prisoner of war to wife after she has shaved her head, pared her nails, and dressed as a woman should (verses 10-13); and the man shall wait a period of thirty days before he marries her to give him time to cool off after she has been humbled by the shaved head, etc. The humbling changes her appearance from looking like a pagan to looking more like a Hebrew woman.

But, if he decides not to marry his female captive, he is to set her free.

"And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou has humbled her."

To sell her would be to engage in a form of deceit because the former captive now looks like a Hebrew woman by virtue of the humbling process. Thus, in Deuteronomy 24:7, a Hebrew who attempts to sell another Hebrew is to suffer the death penalty, and apparently this is the reason why even a captive with the appearance of being a Hebrew is not to be made merchandise of.

The passages in Proverbs are in the context of the value of wisdom, understanding, and knowledge. Here the merchandise is translated as a kind of profit derived from the receiving of knowledge, understanding, and wisdom, which is more valuable than even silver and fine gold.

"For the merchandise of it (knowledge, wisdom, understanding) is better than the merchandise of silver; and the gain thereof than fine gold."

Similarly, Scripture describe the wonderful traits of a woman in Proverbs 31: 18.

"She perceiveth that her merchandise is good; her candle goeth not out by night."

Here, such a woman knows her own value and her light does not fade even in the night.

In Isaiah 23:18, the word merchandise is used twice within the context of prophecy on the city of Tyre in verses 15-17 where she is known for her merchant activities as a harlot. Later, after she has been judged and repented (Matthew Henry says this may have taken place during and after Christ) her merchandise is dedicated now to the Lord, or rather the profit from it. Such is the frugality of the Tyrians that they wear durable rather than expensive clothes and their food is less luxurious and merely abundant.

"And her merchandise and her hire shall be holiness to the Lord; it shall not be treasured nor laid up; for here merchandise shall be for them that dwell before the Lord, to eat sufficiently, and for durable clothing."

In the 45th chapter of Isaiah we see a prophecy concerning the people who knew not the Lord (the Gentiles, v. 5) and of their future prosperity as the Israel of God, wherein the lands of Egypt and Ethiopia bring their merchandise unto this people and pay homage to God. v. 14:

"Thus saith the Lord, The labor of Egypt and merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine; they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee; and there is none else, there is no God."

In Ezekial 26:12 is the prophecy of Tyre's destruction that precedes the prophecy in Isaiah 23.

"And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise; and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses; and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water."

In Ezekial 27:9, 15, 24, 27 (twice), 33, 34 the word merchandise is again used several times in a more detailed prophecy of the destruction of Tyre. In 28:16 violence is the fruit of much merchandise.

"By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned; therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God; and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire."

In the New Testament, we find the first reference to merchandise in Matthew 22:5. Here the text occurs in the Lord's parable of the king who calls to the people to come join the marriage supper of his son,

"But they (the people) made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise;"

Later, in the same parable, these people are described as murderers because they took the servants of the king and killed them rather than hear of the coming marriage of the son. This parable is an obvious description of what the Jews would do to Christ and his disciples.

The next use of the word merchandise, is found in John 2:16. This is the famous series of verses in 2:13-17 in which Jesus drives the money changers, etc., from the Temple.

"And [He] said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence: make not My Father's house an house of merchandise."

In 2 Peter 2:3, we find Peter's sermon and prophecy on what the deceivers will do to the Christians.

"And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you; whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not."

Matthew Henry's Commentary on these verses is to the point when he says:

"Observe ... the method seducers take to draw disciples after them: they use feigned words; they flatter, and by good words and speeches deceive the hearts of the simple, inducing them to yield entirely to the opinions which these seducers endeavour to propagate, and sell and deliver themselves over to the instruction and government of these false teachers, who make a gain of those whom they make their proselytes, serving themselves and making some advantage of them; for all this is through covetousness, with a desire and a design to get more wealth, or credit, or recommendation, by increasing the number of their followers. The faithful ministers of Christ who show men the way of truth, desire the profit and advantage of their followers, that they may be saved, but these seducing teachers desire and design only their own temporal advantage and worldly grandeur."

Again, consistent with previous verses we have cited, we see the condemnation of the practice of making merchandise of men, but especially of Christians.

Then, in Revelations 18:11,12 we find that the word merchandise is used within the judgments pronounced on Babylon the great.

"And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her, for no man buyeth their merchandise any more: The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble."

If, indeed, Babylon the great is the City of Jerusalem as many scholars believe, then we can well understand the reason for the merchants crying out, because with Jerusalem destroyed there is no longer a city to protect their commercial highways to all the world and such trade stops.

In closing Our exposition on the word merchandise in Scripture, the following points should be clear to all:

-First, Scripture forbids making merchandise of men and God especially forbids making merchandise of Christians, to the extent that, the penalty for making merchandise of Christians is death.

-Second, it is clear that trafficking in merchandise is not a practice that God looks upon with favor. Granted, in these verses we see that the merchandise of others, i.e., non-believers, does come into the possession of believers, but what is merchandise to the non-believer is an inheritance to God's people, since 'the Earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof.' And since we are joint-heirs or co-inheritors with Christ, it is Our right to receive such goods, but not to engage in the practice of making merchandise of what God has given us.

In next month's part of this series, this last point will become much clearer!!

The Bankrupcy of A. Lincoln's United States

Part Five:

written and compiled by John Joseph

(continued from Issue the Sixteenth)

Mr. Trafficant was merely disclosing what had happened from the days of Lincoln, Lieber and Company. What this means is that whenever Congress, the trustee, appropriates some more of that bogus "money," the comptroller audits Congress' accounts to see if the bondholders are getting a "fair" shake from their investment in all the property of the United States. In Our Nation, notice what happened to profits during the war, and notice the advent of most of the national banking houses now existing in America:

"In 1863, Secretary Salmon P. Chase worked out with committees of Congress the third national banking system of the country.Under Chase's plan state banks could be taxed heavily upon any issue of notes they might put out [and that crossed state lines--thereby eliminating inland bills of exchange, ala Swift v. Tyson.]. While national banks were allowed to issue notes on the security of [federal] government bonds, which they might buy. The extraordinary profits of the new scheme were such that the financiers entered speedily into the national system. Most of the great banking houses of the North date their origin from the years 1863 and 1864.
At the same time the tariff was increased, and heavy internal taxes were laid in the form of excises and income taxes. The [*406] total from these sources during the war, however, was less than 700 million dollars." Barker and Commager, Our Nation (1942), pp. 405-406.

Four years of war produced less than 700 million dollars. That's less than 170 million dollars a year against a 730 million dollar a year expense! Something had to be done to secure these bonds, and the answers are found in the word "property" and in Erie, supra.

What property was pledged to secure these bonds? What price was paid for the destruction of All Christian states in America. Well, that is very easy to see when taking into account what Judge Henry Clay Dean wrote in 1868:

"All wars of modern times have been under the control of capitalists. In Europe, the moneyed kings dictate terms to their political sovereigns, control wars and make peace. In America, the bankers contrived the late civil war. It was quite as much a scheme of money as of policy. War would not have been created if banks had refused to engage in it. It could not have been carried on, if the capital of the country had manfully opposed it.
"The liberty of the people, the peace of the world and material prosperity of the poor would have been undisturbed, and even the condition of the negro would have been better than now, but for these men.
"The capitalists and stock-gamblers of Europe, by their alliance with the political adventurers [who control the parties] of America, carefully planned this war, in the interest of despotism and the funding systems. They anticipated every argument and prepared the public mind for war in advance. During the war they prepared for the debt and continued the war, that the debt might reach its present enormous extent.
"These gamesters upon human life and public misfortune, have fattened upon the bloody conflicts of emperors and kings [the Good and Lawful Christian people in these united States], and inherit fortunes coined out of the most frightful battles of modern times. Austria, France, Prussia, and England have been fettered by the mortgages entailed by these brokers, upon their property and industry. [Land in allodium is a "has been" except by Repentance to Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and Inheritance under God.]
"Such is the perfection of the conspiracy against the property of the world, entered into by these stock gamblers, that war is always precipitated upon a particular country, whenever it is believed to be ripe for revolution or fat enough to enrich the money trade. [Both of these happened to America in 1861. In fact, Lincoln's War was a revolution against Christianity in the states.]
"For the purpose of creating civil war, destroying the agriculture of the South, entailing a debt upon the People and, if possible, the utter destruction of Republican [res publica] institutions in the United States [of America], English emissaries were, by the monied interests of Europe, under religious guise, sent to America to stir up civil war. Pamphleteers added their wicked labors to the work. Sumner's celebrated visit to Europe was in the same general interest, and when Gen. James Shields of the United States army, had left the valley of the Shenandoah, Sumner assured him that he was glad that the rebels were not entirely defeated, because his great object would not be accomplished if they were. The destruction of our prosperity, the ultimatum of the stock gamblers, had not been reached. The raid of John Brown [at Harper's Ferry in Virginia] and the partizan conflicts, were but incidents in the grand purpose to create war and base a funding system upon it.
"Such has been the unbroken success of the professional mischief-makers of the world, that they have succeeded in Europe for a full half century, in fastening ruin and bankruptcy upon every sovereignty which was directed by their counsels or fell into their grasp.
"[Napoleon] Bonaparte eluded their machinations; this only provoked their wrath and drove them to the combinations which culminated at Waterloo, in the destruction of his empire and liberty.
"The Mexican War was the first game played by the American stockbrokers, upon which the general peace of the Western Hemisphere was staked and lost. The late civil war has been a success, and if the stakes are delivered up by the ruined people to the stockgamblers, permanent peace [domestic Tranquility] in the United States is gone forever.
"The successes have emboldened the stockbrokers, and given them possession of every avenue to popular favor and power. The pulpit, the press and the army, have been used as their instrument, to secure their prize in the blood market of the world. These instruments of popular favor speak of war as the only means of government to be used upon every occasion to gratify spites, to punish indignities, or secure plunder. Unless this spirit be arrested promptly, our peace [domestic Tranquility] is imperilled and will be destroyed.
"There is only one way to counteract this wicked spirit; and that, to give notice to the world that the debts contracted in such an enterprise, bind no one and cannot be collected [under the guise of "taxation"]. If it be wicked to engage in wars, it is also unjust to pay money to carry on wars; but if it be unjust to carry on wars by ready money, how much more atrocious to carry them on by anticipating the credit of generations. It is the duty of all sincere peace men to make a demonstration against this usurpation; and let it be understood that no debt made on the interest of a war of premeditated plunder, can be enforced upon a free people, or be sanctioned by the friends of peace.
"There is an Equity, which, in all public affairs, looks to the purposes, the mode and the application of monies in the creation of debts, when debts have been created in fraud, for purposes of corruption, and the parties issuing evidences of debt were particeps criminis and beneficiaries, then the question goes back to the legislatures, which must levy taxes before they can be collected. The new legislature must be elected by the people. The people of no country hasten to pay debts known to be fraudulent or unjust. Against the indiscriminate payment of no debt ever contracted, has there been so many conclusive arguments for utter repudiation as the debt now claimed by the foreign capitalists and domestic speculators, holding bonds and certificates of indebtedness against the United States, as the basis of a perpetual system of gambling upon the labor and commerce of the country.
"If it be wrong to engage in a war of unparalleled cruelty and horror, it cannot be right to compensate the worst participants in it; men whose business is to inflame wars, to fatten upon the blood of the innocent, and hoard up the treasure of hundreds of thousands of human beings, hurried into the presence of God without thought or preparation.
"What care these men--the brokers in immortal souls--for the burning of cities, barns, mills, and the desolation of whole regions of cultivated lands; with the food and raiment of decrepit old men, feeble women, and helpless children; the razing of churches and desecration of cemeteries?
"Experience for the last three centuries demonstrates that the capitalists of the world hold the peace and the destiny of nations in their hands; they create war and make peace. The superstitions of religion and the malignity of politics, are under the mercenary control of capital. The payment of this debt is a test question of civilization, which the gamblers in public stocks, watch with an intense interest, that Christians might well emulate in the propagation of the gospel.
"Wars in Europe have placed her mercenary bankers in princely opulence. They furnish the sinews of war, and command peace whenever they have sufficiently involved the imperial powers to secure an increase of annuities, and kings quiescently yield to their behests.
"These kingly brokers watch the probabilities of war with the same keen scent that vultures follow the camp of moving armies, to fatten on the offal. Such has been their success and sagacity, that whilst kings exercise arbitrary power over the lives and liberties of their subjects, by war and conscription, these bankers divide the regal power by subsidizing the labor of the subjects of kings in advance, absorbing it in taxations levied at their dictation; purchasing kings, bribing judges, suborning witnesses, entering into partnerships with legislatures, commissioning military officers, and hiring standing armies to stamp out the liberties of the people, who are forced to support all of these by taxation.
"The United States have laid the foundation for just such a comprehensive system of moneyed oligarchy. There is now thrust into our faces the frightful picture, by every newspaper under the control of capital, predictions of war, and clamoring for blood as the remedy for every trivial evil, that adventurers may reap a rich harvest from the vices of the wicked, the follies of the weak, and the general profligacy of society. Such is the spirit of fanaticism, and the maddened temper of bad men aspiring to power, that all argument is ridiculed, except that which [*236] opens up a new field of plunder, or draws new victims into the net of their insatiate lust of gain.
"If such men succeed in funding and consolidating the public debt made during the war [against Christianity], they have established a precedent which will assure them the power to incite a war at any time hereafter, when whim, interest or bad feeling may indicate either its profit or necessity. A strict and rigid settlement, according to the equities of eternal justice, is the only remedy for the great evil upon us. This is the clearest and most direct way to teach these gentlemen what they may not do, although they inflame the vilest passions of human nature into war; yet they must be taught that they cannot control the public conscience [through newspapers, television and other media] to enslave itself, and enforce perpetual bondage upon a people born free; that they cannot safely create and carry on wars, wicked and destructive in themselves, which might be averted, but for the persistent chicanery of capital, which uses all of the well known arts of diplomacy to involve the people in civil war; which, failing in every other means to precipitate their revolutionary ends upon the country, connive at war, eschew compromise, and mob and murder the friends of peace.
"The only hope of peace is in the destruction of the prosperity of mercenaries engaged in provoking civil wars [by failing to have, claim or exercise "civil rights" and paying for the "use" thereof]. He is neither an intelligent nor a true friend of peace, who will not boldly repudiate every illegal, fraudulent, and vicious claim against the labor of the people to satiate the venality of capital, fattened on blood.
"This style of mortgaging labor in anticipated taxation is a wicked device of modern times, to carry on wars of conquest, wars of subjugation, wars for plunder and wars to feed the malignity of bad men. It has never been successfully carried out to ensure more than annually accruing interest on the debt, and then only at reduced rates, and when it could be made the ministering servant of a system of aristocracy and overbearing power. Let it be an avowed article of American faith, that no war of money, no war for money can be successfully prosecuted and carried on under the auspices of a free people; henceforth capitalists will have neither the will or power to involve a peaceful people in uni- [*237] versal carnage. Such has been the work of war upon our social system, sought to be ratified by the sanction of the people in the submission to this debt, that it binds us hand and foot and adds to war slavery, to slavery in all of its concomitant degradation." Judge Henry Clay Dean (1868), Crimes of the Civil War, pp. 232-237. [Emphasis added.] Furthermore:
"The obligation of the slave to work for his master was purely a legal one; an investment of money under the protection of the law. If it were a sinful one, it was the sin of the law, not of the slaveholder. This relation we have repudiated with the full sum of three thousand millions of dollars of money legally invested in this particular interest. It is true that it was argued that this system [of slavery] was oppressive; so do I argue that the debt is oppressive beyond all endurance. It is argued that slavery was unjust; so do I argue that this funding system is unjust. It is argued that the system of slavery was cruel; that it was used to enslave the [*265] poor and helpless black man. So do I argue that the present debt is used as means to enslave the poor white man with the black man, to make them both the servants of the capitalist and bondholder.
"It is emphatically presented, that the system of slavery was transmitted from the parents to innocent children yet unborn. So do I argue that the bonded system of our debt is being transmitted to innocent [future] generations, who will be stinted of sustenance in their mother's womb, and oppressed all the days of their lives, to pay the penalty of their perpetual servitude to their taskmasters. But if such a repudiation in contravention of law, may be made under the plea of military necessity for the overthrow of a written constitution [and the free government erected thereunder], how much stronger is the argument of a civil necessity, for the perpetuity of a system of free government in which the distinction between the rich and the poor shall be merely of imagination? It is argued that African slavery created an overbearing aristocracy. So we argue that the bonds [held mostly by Europeans] have created a most offensive oligarchy, that not only claims to rule society, but assumes to rule the government.
"But there is no fact in the history of this war debt more startling than this: that the great body of these bankers and bondholders were, at the beginning of the war, but poor men; many of them helpless bankrupts, and many of the pretended loans were mere collusions between bankers and government officers [actors], entered into for the purpose of creating money for the one [purported government] and power for the other [bankers], at the expense of the people, who would be required to raise standing armies from their children to support this [banking] power and contribute taxes from their labor to maintain the [government] funding system.
"This has always been the case in the history of paper money inflations; that the pretended benefactors of government have been simply swindlers, who have imposed upon the people their worthless promises to pay in lieu of [specie] as the pretext for their robbery.
"This is true, with scarcely an exception, in every country, that the government is never assisted by paper in any war. Those who issue it amass fortunes by the issue. To this one our country has not been an exception.
"In the history of insolvent estates, bankrupts, merchants, contested debts and repudiated obligations, which make up the assets of the last six years, it must not startle mankind that the honest people have thrown off the yoke rudely placed upon them by reckless and unscrupulous tyrants." Judge Henry Clay Dean, Crimes of the Civil War (1868), pp. 264-265, 267. [Emphasis and insertions added.]

See also Christ's prophecies concerning wars and rumors of wars. These wars are all based on "the love of money [being] the root of all evil."

Judge Dean is talking about Article Four section two, Lincoln's Proclamations, the Civil Rights Acts, as amended, and the so-called Fourteenth Amendment. Those persons "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are all that property so described as belonging to the "United States," those empty civil rights, benefits, privileges and opportunities. Beginning with Lincoln's proclamations through the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (14 Stat. 27) and culminating in the so-called Fourteenth Amendment, these are the basis of the creation of the labor force in commerce needed to prop up the debt ridden system of Babylon which now rules America, made clear by Barker and Commager, and subsequent court decisions:

"Though the Emancipation Proc- lamation did not apply to the border states, nor to the 'subjugated' parts of the Confederacy, all of the border states, and also Tennessee, took action by 1865 to abolish slavery. Finally the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which became effective December 18, 1865, ended the question forever by forbidding slavery in the United States." Barker and Commager, Our Nation (1942), pp. 409-410. [Thus it is ever plain that the policies of the postbellum amendments was carried out previous to "enactment" in law. Lincoln did a fait accompli through his proclamations to twist the arms of his Congress.]
"The Federal Civil Rights Statutes created rights which may be protected by federal courts in the exercise of their normal equity jurisdiction." Progress Development Corp. v. Mitchell (1960), 182 F.Supp. 681, 711. [Emphasis added.]
"The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States are those which arise out of the nature and essential characteristics of the National Government [one of them being a bankrupt pauper], the provisions of the Constitution [primarily the commerce clause], or its laws [executive orders, proclamations, joint resolutions, lex mercatoria, 14 Stat. 27] and treaties [international law] made in pursuance thereof." Boyd v. Thayer, 143 U.S. 135, 160.
"Where the state legislation, under its reserved power to alter and repeal charters of corporations, comes in conflict with valid treaty stipulations, and with the constitution of the United States, it is void." In re Tiburcio Parrot (1880), 1 F. 481, 482.

I should note here, that Lincoln saw his proclamations being military measures in international law, which means that any one who takes advantage of the benefits, privileges or opportunities thereunder, are impressed with a military and international character:

"The original [emancipation] proclamation has nolegal justification except as a military measure.If I take the step, must I not do so without the argument of military necessity, and so without any argument exceptthat I think the measureexpedientright? Would I not thus be in the boundless field of absolutism?Could it fail to be perceived that without any further stretch I might do the same in Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri, and even change any law in any State? Would not many of our own friends shrink away appalled? Would it not lose us the elections, and with them the very cause we seek to advance?" Letter from Abraham Lincoln to Salmon P. Chase, dated September 2, 1863, from J. G. Randall, The Civil War and Reconstruction (1951), p. 494, citing Works, vol. II, pp. 402-403.

Lincoln knew from his own admission that he was venturing where only despots tread, by setting up his own kingdom made in his image and likeness, known as the corporate 'United States.'

(To be continued next month)

Minimum Contacts

One of the newer fictions of 'American law' to come on the scene in recent years, to assist the 'The District of Chaldea,' (better known as Washington, D.C.) in its phony bankruptcy, is the term 'minimum contacts.' The implications of this term are quite devastating to the unsuspecting participant, to wit:

Minimum Contacts. "Sufficient contact of a nonresident natural person or a foreign corporation with a state to give that state jurisdiction over the nonresident or corporation. Minimum contacts, also called minimal contacts, is often referred to as a theory, a principle, or a test of whether a state has in personam jurisdiction, jurisdiction to tax, jurisdiction to regulate, and whether its judgments are entitled to full faith and credit. Exactly what facts constitute minimum contacts is in constant litigation under due process. E.g., a conclusion that a foreign corporation is doing business in a state is not enough to subject it to local process; there must be something 'substantial'--one of the most durable and flexible words in the legal vocabulary." "Substantial is as flexible in the law as in ordinary English. That is its reason for continued existence in the law. Long use of substantial in combinations, e.g., substantial evidence, can produce an impression of precision, which is lacking. The word is an alert! What substantial fastens itself to becomes infected with substantial's flexibility. A place for discretion." Mellinkoff's Dictionary of American Legal Usage (1992), page 408 and 626, by David Mellinkoff (Professor of Law Emeritus, University of California Los Angeles).

Notice in the next three cases cited, how important 'reason' is to the boys from The District of Chaldea.

Substantial evidence rule. "Under the substantial evidence rule, as applied in administrative proceedings, all evidence is competent and may be considered, regardless of its source and nature, if it is the kind of evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. In other words, the competency of evidence for purposes of administrative agency adjudicatory proceedings is made to rest upon the logical persuasiveness of such evidence to the reasonable mind in using it to support a conclusion. It is more than a mere scintilla and means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Chrysler Corp. v. U.S. E.P.A., C.A., 631 F.2d 865, 890, 203 U.S. App.D.C. 283.
Substantially justified. "Test for whether government's litigation position is 'substantially justified' within meaning of Equal Access to Justice Act provision governing award of attorney fees is one of reasonableness, under which government is required to establish that its position has reasonable basis both in law and in fact." Russell v. National Mediation Board, C.A.Tex., 775 F.2d 1284, 1289. "Following 1985 amendments to Equal Access to Justice Act, in order to show that its position was 'substantially justified' and thus be relieved from liability for fees of a prevailing opponent, Government must show not merely that its position was marginally reasonable, but that its position was clearly reasonable, well founded in law and fact, and solid though not necessarily correct." U.S. v. 1,378.65 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situate in Vernon County, State of Mo., C.A.Mo., 794 F2d 1313, 1317.

Whoa!! "Though not necessarily correct"? Sounds like 'truth' has no place in The District of Chaldea. Surprise!!!!! And as to 'reasonable,' we find 'humanity at its finest':

"Reasonable means in the law what it means in ordinary English: rational, just, fair-minded, not too much and not too little, etc. Reasonable means what you want it to mean; in the words of Ambrose Bierce, "Hospitable to persuasion, dissuasion and evasion." (The Devil's Dictionary). Reasonable has no precise legal meaning. It is flexible. That is its virtue and only utility for the law." Mellinkoff's Dictionary of American Legal Usage (1992), page 539.
Minimum Contacts. "A doctrine referring to the minimum due process requirement for subjecting a non-resident civil defendant to a court's personal jurisdiction. The defendant must have sufficient contacts with the forum state such that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95.

With the fact that Christians are non-residents to the foreign 'state' known as 'Washington, D.C.' or 'The United States,' it is important to not have these 'minimum contacts,' to exercise your God-given 'Right of Avoidance' of regulation, taxation, human reason, etc. If the Christian has these 'minimum contacts' with that foreign state or any other foreign state, i.e., State of California, State of New York, State of ............., County of ............, City of ............., that Christian will be looked upon as a 'natural person' (or human being) and be fully regulated thereby:

Minimum contacts. "It exists when a defendant takes purposeful and affirmative action, the effect of which is to cause business activity, foreseeable by the defendant, in the forum state." Mississippi Interstate Exp. Inc. v. Transpo, Inc., C.A. Miss., 681 F.2d 1003, 1007.
"But the basic due process question at issue in the assertion of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident is whether the non-resident has sufficient minimum contacts with the [forum] state such that the maintenance of the action against him does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." 16 Cal. Jur. 3d 143, 70, citing International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 90 L.Ed. 95, 66 S.Ct. 154; Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 53 L.Ed. 683; Kulko v. Superior Court of California, 436 U.S. 84, 56 L.Ed.2d 132, 98 S.Ct. 1690 reh. den. 438 U.S. 908, 57 L.Ed.2d 1150, 98 S.Ct. 3127; World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 62 L.Ed.2d 490, 100 S.Ct. 599; Secrest Machine Corp. v. Superior Court, 33 C.3d 664, 190 Cal.Rptr. 175, 600 P.2d 399; Rush v. Savchuk, 444 U.S. 320, 62 L.Ed.2d 516, 100 S.Ct. 571 on remand 290 N.W.2d 633.
"In such a case, in order to comply with the due process clause, all assertions of state court jurisdiction, including in rem and quasi in rem actions, must be evaluated according to the minimum contacts standards set forth in decisions regarding in personam actions." 16 Cal.Jur.3d 450, 84, citing Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 53 L.Ed. 683.

It's quite clear from all of the above that the Christian, when 'engaged in business' within sight of the lex mercatoria, becomes susceptible to the whims of the arbitrary, capricious, and 'reasonable mind' of the secular humanists found in the 'halls of justice' in The District of Chaldea's district 'courts' and the 'courts' of the States, Counties and Municipalities, where the justice they speak of can only be found out in the halls or in their reasonable minds.

Scripture warns Us of these 'humans':

"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you." 2 Cor. 6:17.

Matthew Henry said of this verse, "There is a great deal of danger in communicating with unbelievers and idolators, danger of being defiled and of being rejected; Therefore the exhortation is to come out from among them, and keep at a due distance, to be separate, as one would avoid the society of those who have the leprosy or the plague, for fear of taking infection, and not to touch the unclean thing, lest we be defiled." (by minimum contacts).

Winning in Court? The Pro Se Way!!!

How to Cook Your Goose --Their Way!!

Perhaps the myth with the greatest impact on the general community of Christians is that which teaches you that you can go into the enemy's court, pro se, and fight your way to victory, and that you will then have the satisfaction of blurting out a loud blood curdling shout of, "There, I showed 'em!!!" We intend to show the fallacy and folly of such grandiose 'human' endeavors of the heathenistic, autonomous reasoning of men when engaging in the field with others of like species or genus. This may sound harsh, but harsh measures are necessary when the house is on fire and none have come to aid the fire-fighting; or, because there are those who try to put out the fire with gasoline. The following is intended for those Christians who have joined the sweeping Christian Law Awakening, which will, by the Grace of God, settle the great political question: Who is The Only True Sovereign?

They have joined the Awakening all right, but far too many are still fighting with the opposition's mindset and are using an eye-dropper to put out a four-alarm fire. Worse yet, many are fighting with 'weapons' guaranteed to 'get results' in the court to 'cook those vultures.' Many of these weapons are fashioned from ancient technology, circa 1862-1866, which has proven ineffective in the past, but which are 'improved' given a 'new look' and 're-packaged' for 'fun and profit' by the next profiteer, a.k.a. the 'patriot pirate,' at the expense of the desperate and ignorant but well-intentioned 'individual.' This has tragic results both long and short term: One, because many, if not all, of these 'packages' have no foundation in God's Law, and so tend to scatter and not gather Christians together; Two, in scattering Christians, they destroy their communities which need re-building by the sole Authority of Scripture; Three, they set individual Christians open for these patriot predators who prey on the offal of this ignorance; and Four, they tend to create individual moneyed interests and empires based on the profiteer's or 'patriot pirate's' new arbitrary 'standard' of what Law should be.

First, we'll define a few words in terms of their religious and political significance.

Person. This word 'person' and its scope and bearing in the law, involving as it does, legal fictions and also apparently 'natural beings,' is difficult to understand: but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding of the word in all the phases of its proper use. The words persona and personae does not have the meaning in the Roman civil law as that which attaches to homo, an individual or a man, in the English; it had a peculiar reference to artificial beings, and the condition or status of individuals. A 'person' here is not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition, or character borne by physical persons. The law of persons is the law of status or condition, to wit:
"A moments reflection enables one to see that man and person cannot be synonymous, for there cannot be an artificial man, though there are artificial persons. Thus the conclusion is easily reached that the law itself often creates an entity or a being which is called a person; the law cannot create an artificial man, but it can and frequently does invest him with artificial attributes; this is his 'personality,' that is to say, the 'man-person'; and abstract persons, which are fictitious and which have no existence except in law; that is to say, those which are purely legal conceptions or creations." American Law and Procedure, Volume 13, pp. 137-162 (1910).

A few comments are needed here to explain this most important legal word 'person.' A 'person' has no physical senses and cannot physically perform to any degree in the world established by God. It needs the substance from God's world to perform, which makes it a parasite living off the host of substance, which is you, when you through ignorance, answer to it and stand surety for its obligations. Politically speaking, since the word 'person' is indicative of status or condition, by extension it is indicative of a relationship to the governmental entity which created it.

"A juristic person is domestic in the [forum] state by which it was created (or by which it was expressly authorized). This theory has met with considerable support, especially in the United States, where indeed it may be said to be the accepted doctrine. Nationality in the present sense, as the factor which determines by what rules of law its legal constitution and capacities must be governed, is a juridical and not a political quality, and should therefore be determined by the legal and not by the political characteristics of the juristic person." E. Hilton Young, The Nationality of a Juristic Person, 22 Harv.L.R. 1, 3, 7. [Emphasis and insertion added.]

When analyzing statutes which create and use 'persons,' we must look to the rules of construction so we can properly apply the above. There are three major doctrines of statutory construction, which by the way, are the same rules for interpreting Scripture.

Rule One

Noscitur a sociis. 'It is known from its associates.' "The meaning of a word may be ascertained by reference to the meaning of words associated with it." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), Maxim, p. 2150.
'It is known from its associates.' "The meaning of a word is or may be known from the accompanying words. Under the doctrine of 'noscitur a sociis,' the meaning of questionable or doubtful words or phrases in a statute may be ascertained by reference to the meaning of other words or phrases associated with it." Black's Law Dictionary, p. 1060.
'Copulatio verborum indicat acceptationem in eodem sensu.'---Coupling of words together shows that they ought to be understood in the same sense. Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 2129.

Rule Two

'Ejusdem Generis.' Lat. 'Of the same kind.' "In the construction of laws, wills, and other instruments, general words following an enumeration of specific things are usually restricted to things of the same kind (ejusdem generis) as those specifically enumerated." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 979. [Emphasis added.];
"Where a term has two meanings differing in the degree merely, it is to be understood in the larger sense wherever it occurs unless it appears to have been used in the narrower sense, by some form of direct expression, or from the context, the nature of the subject matter, or the res gestae. Miller v. Miller (1867) 33 Cal. 353, 355.
"Under the doctrine of ejusdem generis, when enumerations by specific words or terms are used in a statute or ordinance, and they are followed by general words or terms, the general words or terms are held to refer to the same classification as the specific." Chambers v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 74 A.L.R.2d 412, 250 N.C. 194, 108 S.E.2d 211.

Rule Three

"For purposes of statutory construction, all of the statutory provisions in all of the codes must be read together and harmonized if possible." Rupley v. Johnson (1953), 120 C.A.2d 548, 261 Cal.Rptr.2d 318, 320.
"It is a well recognized rule that for purposes of statutory construction the codes are to be regarded as blending into each other and constituting but a single statute." In re Porterfield, 28 C.2d 91, 100, 168 P.2d 706, 712, 167 A.L.R. 675.

From the above references, we conclude that wherever the word 'person' is used in any particular code, rule, or regulation, it is the same 'person' in all codes, rules, regulations, and relates to all things created by that body of law. In the same vein, no one creates his own 'person.' The lawgiver creates, owns, and controls the 'person' because of the relationship of the superior establishing the status or condition of the inferior to the lawgiver. Again, from E. Hilton Young:

"If we are to consider their intentions as to the nationality of the juristic person, it seems to be at least as reasonable as any other assumption, to assume that they intended it to be domestic in the [forum] state in which it was to have its permanent home, and that its constitution and capacities, and their legal relations inter se as members, should be governed by the laws of that [forum] state. As to the intention of the [forum] state, it seems to be by far the most reasonable assumption that it is its intention that that part of its law which governs the constitution and capacities of juristic persons should of necessity be applied to those juristic persons, and those only, which have their permanent home [see 'To Be or Not to Be -- Home-less' in Issue the Sixteenth] within its (the forum state's) jurisdiction, and which thus operate under its protection and enjoy the advantages which it provides. They alone have any permanent connection with it, and constantly renew their legal relations [licenses, franchises, privileges] with its subjects and under its authority. And it is the rules of law that constitute the part in question of the law of a [forum] state relating to juristic persons, that are the personal law of a juristic person to which they apply." E. Hilton Young, The Nationality of a Juristic Person, supra, p. 15. [Emphasis and insertions added.]

We can now fully agree with the following:

"...it is precisely those enterprises that are 'creatures of the law' to which the fourteenth amendment is addressed." Pollak, Racial Discrimination and Judicial Integrity, 108 U. of Pa. L. Rev. 1 (1959).

Continuing, whenever you appear 'in propria persona,' a.k.a. 'in pro per,' you must conform to the lex fori, or 'law of the forum,' which as we have seen governs the persons, a.k.a. status or condition, entering that forum:

IN PROPRIA PERSONA. "In his own person; himself; as, the defendant appeared in propria persona; the plaintiff argued the cause in propria persona. Sometimes abbreviated on the printed court lists, P. P. Bouvier s Law Dictionary (1914), p. 1524.

In the very first clause is contained an oxymoron and paradox. How does any one establish a relationship with himself? Because status or condition determine the person, and they imply a relationship, how does one give, create or become his own person?

The answer is, one cannot become his own person, unless, as a figment of his own imagination he presupposes that "I can do all things within myself." But, this is merely an argument in which one claims to be equal with God and is thus a sheer delusion. Conforming to the law of the forum or lex fori means reduction of status to acquire the attributes of the person sought. This is done through the metaphysical transformation of 'novation,' which removes all distinction between you and all other secular, earthly, mundane, Godless, and anti-Christian beings, or entities.

We come now to the argument of the 'pro se litigant,' which differs from the pro per argument only in the sense that a higher standard of performance is required by courts from the pro se than from the pro per.

Pro se. "For one's own behalf; in person. Appearing for oneself, as in the case of one who does not retain a lawyer and appears for himself in court. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., page 1221.

Historically, we do not find the concept of pro se litigants before Lincoln's War. The reason is, the pro se litigant argument is only possible on the assumption that the man is acting as the advocate for his alter ego, i.e., on behalf of the fictitious person that has been created for him by the State. Thus, the pro se admits, without knowing it, that he is defending a fiction, which has only those 'rights' allowed by statute and the court, and that such a fiction is a 'person,' noticed by the court and statutes. It's impossible for the pro se litigant to challenge the jurisdiction of the court when, by his appearance, he has already granted the basic assumptions necessary for the court to acquire the jurisdiction. It's like saying; "I'm here to argue on behalf of a fiction over which the court has jurisdiction, and I want to challenge that jurisdiction over the fiction." If this doesn't make any sense to you, imagine what goes on in the mind of the judge when he hears the pro se in his court, saying, "you don't have jurisdiction, and I m not going to give it to you." Did you bring your strait-jacket with you?

The basis of the jurisdictional challenge must be, that the court has no jurisdiction over the 'person.' If such is the case, then why did the pro se even bother to show up in the court in the first place. Does one answer a phone that can't ring? Only if one believes that he hears a phone ringing, that no one else can hear. One is thus reduced to marching to the sound of a different drummer in a band that isn't playing and isn't there. Remember, the court has jurisdiction over the 'person,' not the 'surety,' until the two 'become one flesh' by appearance of the flesh. In short, this is the 'doctrine of coverture' under God, converted to the State, who then becomes your new god.

As we have pointed out elsewhere, Scripture and Christian common law deal in substance, while, on the other hand, commercial law and the acts of military governments deal exclusively, under the doctrine of necessity, in fictions that have people of substance knowingly or unknowingly standing as sureties for the God-less fictions, known as 'persons,' 'pro se litigants,' 'attorneys,' etc.

Now, imagine the quandary created by a pro se litigant who appears in a commercial court that deals only with fictitious persons, who can make no motions to move the court without admitting or sub-ordinating his substance to the person. He is subordinating his flesh and blood to the law that created the 'person,' which is no law at all.

It is ludicrous for the 'lawless' pro se litigant to attempt to bring in an argument of substance such as is found in Scripture or Christian common law, to defend a fiction in a fictitious court that has no law:

"Lawless, Lawlessness. adj. ANOMOS, without law, denotes lawless, and is so rendered in the R.V. of Acts 2:23, lawless (men), marg., (men) 'without the law,' (A.V.), 'wicked' (hands); 2 Thess. 2:8, 'the lawless one' (A.V., that wicked), 'of the man of sin' (ver.4); in 2 Pet. 2:8, of deeds (A.V., unlawful), where the thought is not simply that of doing what is unlawful, but of flagrant defiance of known will of God. See, LAW, c, no. 3. n. ANOMIA, 'lawlessness,' akin to A, is most frequently translated 'iniquity'; in 2 Thess. 2:7, R.V., 'lawlessness' (A.V., iniquity); 'the mystery of lawlessness' is not recognized by the world, for it does not consist merely in confusion and disorder (see A); the display of lawlessness by the lawless one (ver. 8) will be the effect of the attempt by the powers of darkness to overthrow the Divine[ly ordered] government [political question]. In 1 John 3:4, the R.V. adheres to the real meaning of the word, 'every one that doeth a sin (a practice, not the committal of an act) doeth also lawlessness': and 'sin is lawlessness.' This definition of sin sets forth its essential character as the rejection of the law, or will, of God and the substitution of the will of self. See INIQUITY and synonymous words." Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (1940), vol. II, p. 317. [Insertion added.]
"Whoever hath an absolute authority to interpret any written or spoken laws, it is he who is truly the lawgiver, to all intents and purposes, and not the person who first spoke or wrote them." Bishop Hoadly's Sermon, preached before the King, March 31, 1717.

Clearly we can now see why judges call for the priest of the god 'science,' who is now called by the more deceitful name 'Psychiatrist,' to have the pro se litigant examined for compos mentis capacity.

Law, in its pure sense which can be easily understood, operates on the things which are created by the Law given by the Lawgiver. We have the Creation of God around us which declares this principle of Law to us. God's Law governs all that He created:

"Legis non verbis sed rebus sunt impositae. --- Laws are imposed on things and not words." Bouvier s Law Dictionary (1914), Maxim, p. 2142.

Since the law of persons is the law of status, then persons are things concerned and governed by the law creating their existence, because: One, neither a person nor a thing have a soul; and Two, without that connection to or with God, neither has access to any law outside the law creating them. For without the law, they have no existence.

"Jus quo universitates utuntur est idem quod habent privati. --- The law which governs corporations is the same as that which governs individuals. Bouvier s Law Dictionary (1914), Maxim, p. 2141. And this is all important!

Because 'a person' has no access to any law outside the law creating 'it,' then no constitutional arguments can ever be raised by the person, successfully. Government is the person created by constitutions and no officer can make any arguments against the power establishing his office by using law which is not given him by the superior power. In the same vein, 'a person' created by legislation can use no law outside the law creating 'it' for any arguments against the superior power creating 'it.'

"A sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends. Car on peut bien recovoir loy d'autruy, mais il est impossible par nature de se donner loy." Bodin, Republique, 1, Chap. 8, ed. 1629, p. 132; Sir John Eliot, De Jure Maiestitis, chap. 3. Nemo suo statuto ligatur necessitative. Baldus, De Leg. et Const. Digna Vox, 2 ed. 1496, fol. 51b, ed. 1539. Kawananakoa v. Polyblank (1907), 205 U.S. 349, 353, 27 S.Ct. 526, 527, 51 L.Ed. 834.
"Legislative authority of a state must be exercised within the territorial limits of the state [of the forum] and it has no extra-territorial jurisdiction." Redding v. Tinkum (1882), 9 P.C.L.J. 592.
"Courts designated by statute as proper for the trial of certain classes of actions are the only ones having jurisdiction of such actions." San Jose Ice and Cold Storage Co. v. City of San Jose (1937), 64 P.2d 1099, 19 C.A.2d 62, re. den. 65 P.2d 1324.
"The laws of a state have no extraterritorial effect." Quong Ham Wah Co. v. Industrial Acc. Commission of California (1920), 184 C. 26, 192 P. 1021, 12 A.L.R. 1190, error dismissed 255 U.S. 445, 41 S.Ct. 373, 65 L.Ed. 723; Wolf v. Gall (1917), 32 C.A. 286, 163 P. 346, reh g den. 32 C.A. 286, 163 P. 350; North Alaska Salmon Co. v. Pillsbury (1916), 174 C. 1, 162 P. 93, L.R.A.1917E, 642.

This is the same which Christ saw when remarking that "A house divided against itself cannot stand. And if Satan cast out Satan, how then shall his kingdom stand?" The very instant you appear in 'pro per' or 'pro slave,' you become the 'real' thing and all defects in process, even if already objected to, become cured by such appearance, whether general or 'special.' Further, the courts assume the individual before them is 'the person' because the only one who can have any standing in their proceedings is the one who has an interest either in the person, the subject-matter, or the proceeding. Interest in either of the first two is submission to the cause. The last is the exercise of a visitorial power by ministerial duty to Christ, for Christ has the interest in the proceeding to ensure it is carried out according to Law. Wigmore wrote:

"Analysis of a Legal Relation. (1) A legal relation (ante, 2) may be termed a Nexus. The converse fact, i.e., that the State force will not interfere to compel or protect the parties, is a non-Nexus. Theoretically, to define the nexus is to state the law sufficiently; practically, the organs of the law are constantly stating a non-Nexus, i.e., that the State force will not interfere.
"A Nexus has two elements: the Persons, and the Interest. The Persons to a Nexus are two. From the side of the person by whom State force is demandable, the Nexus is termed a Right. From the side of the person against whom it is demandable, the Nexus is termed a Burden, Duty, Obligation, or Liability. The former person is termed Obligee, the latter Obligor." Wigmore, A Summary of the Principles of Torts, (Select Cases on the Law of Torts, vol. II, Appendix A.)
"(E)very taxpayer [statutory person] is a cestui qui trust having sufficient interest in the preventing abuse of the trust to be recognized in the field of this court's prerogative jurisdiction as a relator in proceedings to set sovereign authority in motion." In Re Bolens (1912), 135 N.W. 164.
"...in order to comply with the due process clause, all assertions of state court jurisdiction, including in rem and quasi in rem actions, must be evaluated according to the minimum contacts standards set forth in decisions regarding in personam actions." 16 Cal.Jur.3d 450, sec. 84, citing Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 53 L.Ed. 683.
Minimum contacts. It exists when a defendant takes purposeful and affirmative action, the effect of which is to cause business activity, foreseeable by the defendant, in the forum state. Mississippi Interstate Exp. Inc. v. Transpo, Inc., C.A. Miss., 681 F.2d 1003, 1007. [This is done voluntarily by the defendant.]
"The source of the court's adjudicatory power, in the constitutional sense, more properly depends upon the defendant's relation to the forum, as [commercial] citizen or resident, or upon his conduct or activities in or affecting [commercial] persons or property within the forum. This is the real issue and the [court] should determine whether facts exist that constitutionally support the court's asserted jurisdiction." Gorfinkel, Special Appearance, 5 U. San. Fran. L. Rev. 25 (1970).

But this relationship is never established simply by the statute, because:

"[The] intention of one party does not make contract." Barrios & Co. v. Pettigrew (G. V.) Co. (1924), 68 C.A. 139, 228 P. 676.

Ergo, the intent of the legislature does not create the substance or surety for the 'person' defined in the statute. Voluntary appearance in and on various forms by you is necessary, for their purposes.

"Persona est homo cum statu quodam consideratus. A person is a man considered with reference to a certain status." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), Maxim, p. 2153. [Emphasis added.]

It is established by those minimum contacts to which you affirm or to which you retain in relationship to the lawgiver. 'Minimum contacts' are those contacts, at the very minimum, which are enough to establish the court's jurisdiction over the person, resident address (mail box/P.O. Box), admissions, licenses, trades, occupations, employments, business, &c.

"...a court cannot acquire jurisdiction to pronounce a personal judgment against one who has no residence within the state [of the forum], except by actual notice upon him within the state, or by his voluntary appearance. Shipman's Common Law Pleading (1923), Benjamin J. Shipman, p. 23. [Emphasis added.]

By appearance on paper, by attorney, or in your own behalf, submission to the cause is presumed, because the relationship both as to the 'person' and the forum, is affirmed by such appearance:

"The due process requires that relationship between a non-resident defendant and the forum state be such that it is fair and reasonable to require that defendant submit to suit in the state [of the forum]. 16 Cal.Jur.3d 143, sec. 70, citing Corneliuson v. Chaney, 127 Cal.Rptr. 352, 545 P.2d 264; Ruger v. Superior Court of Sacramento County, 118 C.A.3d 427, 173 Cal.Rptr. 302.
"Quod semel placuit in electione, amplius displiciere non potest. That which in making his election a man has once been pleased to choose, he cannot afterwards quarrel with." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), Maxim, p. 2159.

We conclude that if you wish to 'appear' you do so at your own risk!!!

"Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are His: And He changeth the times and the seasons: He removeth kings, and setteth up kings: He giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding: He revealeth the deep and secret things: He knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with Him." Daniel 2:20-22.
"With Him is strength and wisdom: the deceived and the deceiver are His. He leadeth counsellors away spoiled, and maketh the judges fools. He looseth the bond of kings, and girdeth their loins with a girdle. He leadeth princes away spoiled, and overthroweth the mighty. He poureth contempt upon princes, and weakeneth the strength of the mighty. He increaseth the nations, and destroyeth them: He enlargeth the nations, and straiteneth them again. He taketh away the heart of the chief of the people of the earth [secular governments] and causeth them to wander in a wilderness where there is no way. They grope in the dark without light, and He maketh them to stagger like a drunken man. Job 12:18-25. [Insertion added.]

The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men

A Sermon by John Witherspoon

(continued from Issue the Fifteenth)

Part Three of Three Parts

"The management of the war itself on their part, would furnish new proof of this, if any were needful. Is it not manifest with what absurdity and impropriety they have conducted their own designs? We had nothing so much to fear as dissension, and they have by wanton and unnecessary cruelty forced us into union. At the same time to let us see what we have to expect, and what would be the fatal consequence of unlimited submission, they have uniformly called those acts Lenity, which filled this whole continent with resentment and horror. The ineffable disdain expressed by our fellow subject, in saying, "That he would not hearken to America, till she was at his feet," has armed more men, and inspired more deadly rage, than could have been done by laying waste a whole province with fire and sword. Again, we wanted not numbers, but time, and they sent over handful after handful, till we were ready to oppose a multitude greater than they have to send. In fine, if there was one place stronger than the rest, and more able and willing to resist, there they made the attack, and left the others till they were duly informed, completely incensed, and fully furnished with every instrument of war, I mention these things, my brethren, not only as grounds of confidence in God, who can easily overthrow the wisdom of the wise, but as decisive proofs of the impossibility of these great and growing states, being safe and happy when every part of their internal polity is dependent on Great-Britain If, on account of their distance, and ignorance of our situation, they could not conduct their own quarrel with propriety for one year, how can they give direction and vigor to every department of our civil constitutions from age to age? There are fixed bounds to every human thing. When the branches of a tree grow very large and weighty they fall off from the trunk. The sharpest sword will not pierce when it cannot reach. And there is a certain distance from the seat of government, where an attempt to rule will either produce tyranny and helpless subjection, or provoke resistance and effect a separation.

I have said, if your principles are pure the meaning of this is, if your present opposition to the claims of the British ministry does not arise from a seditious and turbulent spirit, or a wanton contempt of legal authority; from a blind and factious attachment to particular persons or parties; or from a selfish rapacious disposition and a desire to turn public confusion to private profit - but from a concern for the interest of your country, and the safety of yourselves and your posterity. On this subject I cannot help observing, that though it would be a miracle if there were not many selfish persons among us, and discoveries now and then made of mean and interested transactions, yet they have been comparatively inconsiderable both in number and effect. In general, there has been so great degree of public spirit, that we have much more reason to be thankful for its vigour and prevalence, than to wonder at the few appearances of dishonesty or disaffection. It would be very uncandid to ascribe the universal ardour that has prevailed among all ranks of men, and the spirited exertions in the most distant colonies to any thing else than public spirit. Nor was there ever perhaps in history so general a commotion from which religious differences have been so entirely excluded. Nothing of this kind has as yet been heard, except of late in the absurd, but malicious and detestable attempts of our few remaining enemies to introduce them. At the same time I must also for the honour of this country observe, that though government in the ancient forms has been so long unhinged, and in some colonies not sufficient care taken to substitute another in its place; yet has there been, by common consent, a much greater degree of order and public peace, than men of reflexion and experience foretold or expected. From all these circumstances I conclude favourably of the principles of the friends of liberty, and do earnestly exhort you to adopt and act upon those which have been described, and resist the influence of every other.

Once more, if to the justice of your cause, and the purity of your principles you add prudence in your conduct there will be the greatest reason to hope, by the blessing of God, for prosperity and success. By prudence in conducting this important struggle, I have chiefly inview union, firmness, and patience. Every body must perceive the absolute necessity of union. It is indeed in every body's mouth, and therefore instead of attempting to convince you of its importance, I will only caution you against the usual causes of division. If persons of every rank, instead of implicitly complying with the orders of those whom they themselves have chosen to direct, will needs judge every measure over again, when it comes to be put in execution. If different classes of men intermix their little private views, or clashing interest with public affairs, and marshal into parties, the merchant against the land-holder, and the landholder against the merchant. If local provincial pride and jealousy arise, and you allow yourselves to speak with contempt of the courage, character, and manners, or even language of particular places, you are doing a greater injury to the common cause, than you are aware of. If such practices are admitted among us, I shall look upon it as one of the most dangerous symptoms and if they become general, a presage of approaching ruin.

By firmness and patience, I mean a resolute adherence to your duty, and laying your account with many difficulties as well as occasional disappointments. In a former part of this discourse, I have cautioned you against ostentation and vain glory. Be pleased further to observe, that extremes often beget one another, the same persons who exult extravagantly on success, are generally most liable to despondent timidity on every little inconsiderable defeat. Men of this character are the bane and corruption of every society or party to which they belong, but they are especially the ruin of an army if suffered to continue in it. Remember the vicissitude of human things, and the usual course of providence. How often has a just cause been reduced to the lowest ebb, and yet when firmly adhered to, has become finally triumphant. I speak this now while the affairs of the colonies are in so prosperous a state, lest this prosperity itself should render you less able to bear unexpected misfortunes - The sum of the whole is, that the blessing of God is only to be looked for by those who are not wanting in the discharge of their own duty. I would neither have you to trust in an arm of flesh, nor sit with folded hands and expect that miracles should be wrought in your defence. - This is a sin which is in scripture stiled tempting God. In opposition to it, I would exhort you as Joab did the host of Israel, who though he does not appear to have had a spotless character throughout, certainly in this instance spoke like a prudent general and a pious man. Be of good courage, and let us behave ourselves valiantly for our people and for the cities of our God, and let the Lord do that which is good in his sight. 2 Samuel 1:12.

I shall now conclude this discourse by some exhortations to duty founded upon the truths, which have been illustrated above, and suited to the interesting state of this country at the present time; and,

1. Suffer me to recommend to you an attention to the public interest of religion, or in other words zeal for the glory of God and the good of others. I have already endeavoured to exhort sinners to repentance, what I have here in view is to point out to you the concern which every good man ought to take in the national character and manners, and the means which he ought to use for promoting public virtue and bearing down impiety and vice. This is a matter of the utmost moment, and which ought to be well understood, both in its nature and principles. Nothing is more certain than that a general profligacy and corruption of manners makes a people ripe for destruction. A good form of government may hold the rotten materials together for some time, but beyond a certain pitch even the best constitution will be ineffectual, and slavery must ensue. On the other hand, when the manners of a nation are pure, when true religion and internal principles maintain their vigour, the attempts of the most powerful enemies to oppress them are commonly baffled and disappointed. This will be found equally certain, whether we consider the great principles of God's moral government, or the operation and influence of natural causes.

What follows from this? That he is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down profanity and immorality of every kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy to God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country. Do not suppose my brethren, that I mean to recommend a furious and angry zeal for the circumstantials of religion, or the contentions of one sect with another about their peculiar distinctions. I do not wish you to oppose any body's religion, but every body's wickedness. Perhaps there are few surer marks of the reality of religion, than when a man feels himself more joined in spirit to a truly holy person of a different denomination, than to an irregular liver of his own. It is therefore your duty in this important and critical season, to exert yourselves every one in his proper sphere to stem the tide of prevailing vice, to promote the knowledge of God, the reverence of his name and worship, and obedience to His Laws.

Perhaps you will ask, what it is that you are called to do for this purpose farther than your own personal duty? I answer this itself when taken in its proper extent is not a little. The nature and obligation of visible religion is, I am afraid, little understood and less attended to.

Many from a real or pretended fear of the imputation of hypocrisy, banish from their conversation and carriage every appearance of respect and submission to the Living God. What a weakness and meanness of spirit does it discover for a man to be ashamed in the presence of his fellow sinners, to profess that reverence to Almighty God which he inwardly feels? The truth is, he makes himself truly liable to the accusation which he means to avoid. It is as genuine and perhaps a more culpable hypocrisy to appear to have less religion than you really have, than to appear to have more. This false shame is a more extensive evil than is commonly apprehended. We contribute constantly, though insensibly, to form each others character and manners; and therefore, the usefulness of a strictly holy and conscientious deportment is not confined to the possessor, but spreads its happy influence to all that are within its reach. I need scarcely add, that in proportion as men are distinguished by understanding, literature, age, rank, office, wealth, or any other circumstance, their example will be useful on the one hand, or pernicious on the other.

But I cannot content myself with barely recommending a silent example. There is a dignity in virtue which is entitled to authority and ought to claim it. In many cases it is the duty of a good man, by open reproof and opposition, to wage war with profaneness. There is a scripture precept delivered in very singular terms, to which I beg your attention; Thou shalt not hate thy brother in the heart, but shalt in any wise rebuke him, and not suffer sin upon him. How prone are many to represent reproof as flowing from ill nature and surliness of temper? The Spirit of God, on the contrary, considers it as the effect of inward hatred, or want of genuine love, to forbear reproof when it is necessary or may be useful. I am sensible there may in some cases be a restraint from prudence, agreeably to that caution of Solomon, Cast not your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rent you. Of this every man must judge as well as he can for himself; but certainly, either by open reproof, or expressive silence, or speedy departure from such society, we ought to guard against being partakers of other men's sins.

To this let me add, that if all men are bound in some degree, certain classes of men are under peculiar obligations to the discharge of this duty. Magistrates, ministers, parents, heads of families, and those whom age has rendered venerable, are called to use their authority and influence for the glory of God and good of others. Bad men themselves discover an inward conviction of this, for they are often liberal in their reproaches of persons of grave characters or religious profession, if they bear with patience the profanity of others. Instead of enlarging on the duty of men in authority in general, I must particularly recommend this matter to those who have the command of soldiers enlisted for the defence of their country. The cause is sacred, and the champions for it ought to be holy. Nothing is more grieving to the heart of a good man, than to hear from those who are going to the field, the horrid sound of cursing and blasphemy; it cools the ardor of his prayers, as well as abates his confidence and hope in God. Many more circumstances affect me in such a case, than I can enlarge upon, or indeed easily enumerate at present; the glory of God, the interest of the deluded sinner, going like a devoted victim and imprecating vengeance on his own head, as well as the cause itself committed to his care. We have sometimes taken the liberty to forebode the downfall of the British empire, from the corruption and degeneracy of the people. Unhappily the British soldiers have been distinguished among all the nations in Europe, for the most shocking profanity.

2. I exhort all who are not called to go into the field to apply themselves with the utmost diligence to works of industry. It is in your power by this means not only to supply the necessities, but to add to the strength of your country. Habits of industry prevailing in a society not only increase its wealth, as their immediate effect, but they prevent the introduction of many vices, and are intimately connected with sobriety and good morals. Idleness is the mother or nurse of almost every vice, and want, which is its inseparable companion, urges men on to the most abandoned and destructive courses. Industry, therefore, is a moral duty of the greatest moment, absolutely necessary to national prosperity, and the sure way of obtaining the blessing of God. I would also observe, that in this, as in every other part of God's government, obedience to His Will is as much as natural mean, as a meritorious cause of the advantage we wish to reap from it. Industry brings up a firm and hardy race. He who is inured to the labour of the field, is prepared for the fatigues of a campaign. The active farmer who rises with the dawn and follows his team or plow, must in the end be an overmatch for those effeminate and delicate soldiers, who are nursed in the lap of self-indulgence, and whose greatest exertion is in the important preparation for, and tedious attendance on, a masquerade, or midnight ball.

3. In the last place, suffer me to recommend to you frugality in your families, and every other article of expense. This, the state of things among us renders absolutely necessary, and it stands in the most immediate connection both with virtuous industry, and active public spirit. Temperance in meals, moderation and decency in dress, furniture and equipage, have, I think, generally been characteristics of a distinguished patriot. And when the same spirit pervades a people in general, they are fit for every duty, and able to encounter the most formidable enemy. The general object of the preceding discourse has been the wrath of man praising God. If the unjust oppression of your enemies, which withholds from you many of the usual articles of luxury and magnificence, shall contribute to make you clothe yourselves and your children with the works of your own hands, and cover your tables with the salutary productions of your own soil, it will be a new illustration of the same truth, and a real happiness to yourselves and your country.

I could wish to have every good thing done from the purest principles and the noblest views. Consider, therefore, that the Christian character, particularly the self-denial of the gospel, should extend to your whole deportment. In the early times of Christianity, when adult converts were admitted to baptism, they were asked among other questions, Do you renounce the world, its shews, its pomp, and its vanities? I do. The form of this is still reserved in the administration of baptism, where we renounce the devil, the world, and the flesh. This certainly implies not only abstaining from acts of gross intemperance and excess, but a humility of carriage, a restraint and moderation in all your desires. The same thing, as it is suitable to your Christian profession, is also necessary to make you truly independent in yourselves, and to feed the source of liberality and charity to others, or to the public. The riotous and wasteful liver, whose craving appetites make him constantly needy, is and must be subject of many masters, according to the saying of Solomon, The borrower is servant to the lender. But the frugal and moderate person, who guides his affairs with discretion, is able to assist in public counsels by a free and unbiased judgment, to supply the wants of his poor brethren, and sometimes, by his estate, and substance, to give important aid to a sinking country.

Upon the whole, I beseech you to make a wise improvement of the present threatening aspect of public affairs, and to remember that your duty to God, to your country, to your families, and to yourselves, is the same. True religion is nothing else but an inward temper and outward conduct suited to your state and circumstances in providence at any time. And as peace with God and conformity to Him, adds to the sweetness of created concerts while we possess them, so in times of difficulty and trial, it is in the man of piety and inward principle that we may expect to find the uncorrupted patriot, the useful citizen, and the invincible soldier.-

God grant that in America, true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable, and that the unjust attempts to destroy the one, may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both.

THE END.

The History of The Law of Nature:

A Preliminary Study

A Law Review by Frederick Pollack

The following is Part One by noted jurist Frederick Pollack from the Columbia Law Review, Volume II, March, 1902. Part Two will appear in Issue the Twentieth. It is an excellent example of the 'autonomous reasoning' of humanists dictating what their 'law' is or should be. Note the definition of 'reasonable' on Page four.

In the domain of private law the ideas of reasonableness and natural justice, which do not the less belong to the Law of Nature because they have been called by different names at different times, leapt into fresh activity, and created or largely modified whole bodies of doctrine. Later, by a process which at first sight looks paradoxical, the same ideas became the vehicle for spreading the distinctive principles and methods of the Common Law in lands where it did not and could not formally claim any jurisdiction. We shall now try to follow the Law of Nature in these several careers of conquest, of which some at least are far from being closed.

International Law. With regard to International Law, it is notorious that all authorities down to the end of the eighteenth century, and almost all outside England to this day, have treated it as a body of doctrine derived from and justified by the Law of Nature. There has been a certain divergence of opinions on the question whether the law is established by the reason of the thing alone--natura rationalis, as Grotius says--or by the actual usage of civilized nations. But this divergence is really more in expression than in any fundamental conception. It was never asserted by the most zealous advocate of the Law of Nature that an individual opinion of what is just can, as such, make a general rule. Here, as elsewhere, we must apply the principle of Aristotle, and deem that to be reasonable which appears so to competent persons. There must be a competent and prevalent consent, and the best evidence of such consent is constant and deliberate usage. Discordant opinions as to what is right or convenient could never produce a uniform accepted usage, as, on the other hand, no other reason can be assigned for the general acceptance of certain usages by independent States than that they are generally believed to be convenient and just. In fact, the elements of reason and custom have been recognized by the highest authorities as inseparable, and strengthening one another. Thus the English law officers (among whom Lord Mansfield, then Solicitor-General, took the leading part) wrote in their celebrated opinion in the case of the Silesian Loan that the law of nations is "founded upon justice, equity, convenience, and the reason of the thing, and confirmed by long usage." Holliday's Life of William Earl of Mansfield, London, 1797, pp.428 et seq. In the very infancy of the doctrine Alberico Gentili, while he declared that the ius gentium applicable to the problems of war was identical with the Law of Nature, and claimed for it the authority of absolute reason, also vouched the continuing and general consent of mankind to witness it; not an imaginary consent of all men living at any one time, but an agreement constant and prevalent--in fact, quod successive placere omnibus visum est. For all practical purposes we may define International Law, with the late Lord Russell of Killowen, as "the sum of the rules or usages which civilized States have agreed shall be binding upon them in their dealings with one another," remembering, however, that the agreement need not be formal or express. Such rules may, of course, be modified, generally or partially, by convention or usage, (see per Lord Stowell, The Santa Cruz, 1 Rob Adm. at p.58) in any manner consistent with the objects for which the law of nations exists (all moralists allow that in some cases it is better, or less bad, to break an agreement that ought never to have been made than to perform it). This is not only required by convenience, but wholly in accordance with the doctrine of the Law of Nature as received in the Middle Ages, which expressly admitted the validity of positive rules and conventions not contrary to fundamental principle. If any one ever did want to lay down a dogmatic and immutable code of Naturrecht, it was not the school men, but the utilitarians.

Some English writers, and even one or two eminent judges, have rather superfluously protested that the opinions of text-writers cannot make law for nations. It is certain, as Lord Stowell pointed out, that they cannot; but the consensus of authors of good repute, or even the clear statement of one eminent author, may be taken as evidence of the accepted practice where practice is not shown to be otherwise. "Vattel" said Lord Stowell in a leading case on the right of visit and search, "is here to be considered, not as a lawyer merely delivering an opinion, but as a witness asserting the fact--the fact that such is the existing practice of modern Europe." The Maria, 1 Rob. at p. 363. The Paquete Havana, The Lola (1899) 175 U.S. 677, 700. It is equally plain that no State can maintain claims to exercise a novel jurisdiction over citizens of other States by appealing to the Law of Nature in the sense of the opinion entertained by itself alone of what is right and convenient in the case. An argument really of this kind was urged with great ability and eloquence, but without success, by the counsel for the United States in the Bering Sea arbitration. All this, again, is in strict agreement with the general principles of natural law. No particular opinion of this or that learned person, much less of an interested party, can make that reasonable which is not acceptable as such to the general opinion of civilized mankind.

In this country questions of International Law have mostly arisen in Admiralty jurisdiction, and our classical authorities consist to a great extent of Lord Stowell's judgments on points arising out of the exercise of belligerent rights at sea in the war against the French Republic and Empire. There is no doubt whatever as to the kind of law that Lord Stowell thought he was administering. It was ius gentium in the fullest sense, a body of rules not merely municipal, but cosmopolitan. For him the Court of Admiralty was a court of the law of nations, and of the law of nations only, not intended to carry into effect the municipal laws of this or any other country. "The seat of judicial authority is locally here, in the belligerent country, according to the known law and practice of nations, but the law itself has no locality." The Maria, 1 Rob. 341, 350. As for the opinion that nations are bound by the law of treaty only, and there is no other law of nations but that which is derived from positive compact and convention, Lord Stowell rejected it as fit only for Barbary pirates. The Helena, 4 Rob. 7. We must either admit that modern International Law is law founded on cosmopolitan principles of reason, a true living offshoot of the Law of Nature, or ignore our own most authoritative expositions of it. In fact, these utterances have been utterly ignored, so far as I know, by English publicists of the extreme insular school.

Some of the humanistic subjects covered by Frederick Pollack in Part Two in Issue the Twentieth will be: 'Natural Justice in the modern Common Law,' 'The Law Merchant,' 'The Common Counts,' 'The Reasonable Man,' and 'Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience.'

Præmunire. "An offence against the king and his government, though not subject to capital punishment. So called from the writ which issued preparatory to the prosecution: "Præmunire facias A,B. quod sit coram nobis," etc.; The statutes establishing this offense, the first of which was made in the thirty-first year of the reign of Edward I., were framed to encounter the papal usurptions in England; the original meaning of the offense called "præmunire" being the introduction of a foreign power into the kingdom, and creating imperium in imperio, by paying that obedience to papal process which constitutionally belonged to the king alone. The penalties of præmunire were afterwards applied to other heinous offenses." 4 Bl. Comm. 103-117; 4 Steph. Comm. 215-217.

Præmunire

"It is clearly agreed, that a person attainted in a præmunire can bring no action whatsoever; neither is it safe for any one, knowing him to be guilty, to give him any aid, comfort, or relief." Matthew Bacon's 'Abridgement of the Law,' (1876), Vol. 7, page 693.

"The defendant in a præmunire must regularly appear in person and not by attorney, whether he be a peer or a commoner, unless he is dispensed with by some writ or grant for that purpose." 3 Inst. 125.

"It is said by Jacob to be a corruption of præmoneri, to be forewarned, citing Du Cange." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 2651.

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

You have a child on your knee. Listen a moment. Do you know what that child is? It is an immortal being; destined to live for ever! It is destined to be happy or miserable! And who is to make it happy or miserable? You--the mother! You, who gave it birth, the mother of its body, are also the mother of its soul, for good or ill. Its character is yet undecided; its destiny is placed in your hands. What shall it be? That child may be a liar. You can prevent it. It may be a drunkard. You can prevent it. It may be a thief. You can prevent it. It may be a murderer. You can prevent it. It may be an atheist. You can prevent it. It may live a life of misery to itself and mischief to others. You can prevent it. It may descend into the grave with an evil memory behind and dread before. You can prevent it. Yes, you, the mother, can prevent all these things. Will you, or will you not? Look at the innocent! Tell me again; will you save it? Will you watch over it, will you teach it, warn it, discipline it, subdue it, pray for it? Or will you in the vain search of pleasure, or in gaiety, or in fashion or folly, or in the chase of some other bauble, or even in household cares, neglect the soul of your child, and leave the little immortal to take wing alone, exposed to evil, to temptation, to ruin? Look again at the infant! Place your hand on its little heart! Shall that heart be deserted by its mother, to beat perchance in sorrow, disappointment, wretchedness, and despair? Place your ear on its side and hear that heart beat! How rapid and vigorous the strokes! How the blood is thrown through the little veins! Think of it; that heart, in its vigor now, is the emblem of a spirit that will work with ceaseless pulsation, for sorrow or joy forever.

To a Mother

Power of the Gospel

The scruple is often heard, and sometimes from good men who have taken but short views on this subject, "What, after all, can you accomplish? Iniquity abounds, and the wicked seem to multiply and wax bolder!" True, sadly true; but they fail to inquire, what would the world become, without restraints? abandoned to its chosen course, and the rein of indulgence thrown on the neck of every passion? The Christian religion is healthy and purifying, and wherever it is inculcated, it will be to substantial purpose. It is adopted to the temporal, intellectual, and moral wants of our race; it harmonizes with the constitution of our physical and moral nature, and if its influences ever become disastrous, it is because by perverting it we have made them such. There is nothing in all the united universe that can so elevate and refine the soul. Take the most degraded from the haunts of vice, and let the spirit of God seal the gospel in his heart, in the assurance that the Lord waits to be gracious,, and notwithstanding all his vileness, will be reconciled, and remit all, and forgive all his rebellion and ingratitude; and his soul rises at the blessed thought; his bosom will begin to expand with noble impulses, as the love of God in the great scheme of redemption warms his soul. Now he hates his chains, abhors his vileness; his spirit breaks away from his bondage, and he rises to the liberty and purity of the sons of God. There is an energy and power in crucified love, that when it beams on the soul, melts and humbles, and exalts it. Such sympathies felt, and such sacrifices made for this living mysterious faculty within me. Heaven and earth moved in concert for the immortal principle that beats and breathes here! Ah, exclaims the conscious sinner, I will revere my being! -- I will cherish my hopes! This mighty motive will bring a world of rebellion to submission and obedience, in filial confidence and love.

Issue the Eighteenth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Serving Two Masters...

Admissions and Confessions, Part Six...

Scripture and the Law Merchant, Part Two ...

The Origin of Today's "Property Tax"...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Serving Two Masters

More 'Admissions and Confessions' next month.

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Mat. 6:24.

Matthew Henry said of this verse;

"We must take heed of hypocrisy and worldlymindedness in choosing the master we serve. v. 24. No man can serve two masters. Serving two masters is contrary to the single eye; for the eye will be to the master's hand. Ps. 123:1, 2. Our Lord Jesus here exposes the cheat which those put upon their own souls, who think to divide between God and the world, to have a treasure on earth, and a treasure in Heaven too, to please God and please men too. Why not? says the hypocrite; it is good to have two strings to one's bow. They hope to make their religion serve their secular interest, and so turn to account both ways. The pretending mother was for dividing the child; the Samaritans will compound between God and idols. No, says Christ, this will not do; it is but a supposition that gain is godliness, 1 Tim. 6:5. Here is,
1. A general maxim laid down; it is likely it was a proverb among the Jews, No man can serve two master, much less two gods; for their commands will some time or other cross or contradict one another, and their occasions interfere. While two masters go together, a servant may follow them both; but when they part, you will see to which he belongs; he cannot love, and observe, and cleave to both as he should. If to the one, not to the other; either this or that must be comparatively hated and despised. This truth is plain enough in common cases.
2. The application of it to the business in hand. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon. Mammon is a Syriac word, that signifies gain; so whatever in this world is, or is accounted by us to be, gain (Phil. 3:7), is mammon. Whatever is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life, is mammon. To some their belly is their mammon, and they serve that (Phil. 3:19); to others their ease, their sleep, their sports and pastimes, are their mammon (Prov. 6:9); to others worldly riches (James 4:13); to others honors and preferments; the praise and applause of men was the Pharisees' mammon; in a word, self, the unity in which the world's Trinity centres, sensual, secular self, is the mammon which cannot be served in conjunction with God; for if it be served, it is in competition with Him and in contradiction to Him. He does not say, We must not or we should not, but we cannot serve God and Mammon; we cannot love both (1 John 2;15; James 4:4); or hold to both, or hold by both in observance, obedience, attendance, trust, and dependence, for they are contrary the one to the other. God says, "My son, give me thy heart." Mammon says, "No, give it to me." God says, "Be content with such things as you have." Mammon says, "Grasp at all that ever thou canst. Rem, rem, quocunque modo rem - Money, money; by fair means or by foul, money." God says, "Defraud not, never lie, be honest and just in all thy dealing." Mammon says, "Cheat thy own Father, if thou canst gain by it." God says, "Be charitable." Mammon says, "Hold thy own: this giving undos us all." God says, "Be careful for nothing." Mammon says, "Be careful for every thing." God says, "Keep holy thy sabbath-day." Mammon says, "Make use of that day as well as any other for the world." Thus inconsistent are the commands of God and Mammon, so that we cannot serve both. Let us not then halt between God and Baal, but choose ye this day whom ye will serve, and abide by our choice. Matthew Henry's Commentary On the Whole Bible, (1706) Vol. 5, pp.65 and 66.

What does the law say about serving two masters?

"Each principal is entitled to the agent's undivided loyalty, for the law recognizes 'that no man can serve two masters.'" Mechem on Agency, 3d. ed., sec. 298.
"A slave and all his earnings belong to his master or owner, and he could not, therefore, make contracts which were obligatory upon himself or the person contracted with." Bedford, Trustee v. Williams, Adm'r, (1867), 5 Coldw.(Tenn.) 202.

Christians are slaves or bondservants of Jesus Christ, and therefore are bound by the same law.

And, as far as serving mammon:

"BAAL. (Heb.)--lord; master; possessor; owner; guardian; a husband; Jove; Jupiter; the sun.a generic term for God in may of the Syro-Arabian languages.
"Chief male deity of the Phoenicians and Canaanites, as Ashtoreth was their principal female deity (Judg. 2:13). The worship of Baal was directed to Jovis, Jupiter, or the Sun as the guardian and giver of good fortune, prosperity, and abundance.
"Meta. Baal means lord, and it was the besetting sin of the ancient Hebrews to apply this title to things formed instead of the formless. This tendency is still prevalent, and not merely among the Hebrews.
"All concepts of God as less than universal mind are Baal. Those who believe in a personal god are Baal worshippers, because they make an image of that which is 'without body, parts, or passions.' They should learn to go back of the realm of things, that they may come in touch with God, who is Spirit, mind, cause, omnipresence.
"Baal worship was a form of nature worship. All people who study materiality and seek to find in it the source of existence are sacrificing to Baal. This is strictly intellectual. But there are those on the soul plane who think that they are spiritual because they feel the throb of nature and join in all her moods. They are closely allied to the whirling dervish, and dissipate their soul substance in the various forces of nature with which they are in love. Such persons must do away with this Baal worship and call upon the life-fire of the Spirit to consume every material phase of sacrifice.
"Baalim and Asheroth represent nature in its various sensuous aspects. 'All the host of heaven (see Deut. 4:19 and 17:3) are the sun, moon, and stars and the twelve signs of the zodiac. When we fall into the evils of Manasseh (II Chron. 33:1-13) we think that the planets and stars rule over us and that it is necessary to pay them a certain degree of homage or worship because of their influence. Some people in this day have great faith in their 'ruling planets,' and think that they are bound to certain traits of character because they were born when those sidereal bodies were in the ascendancy. They are forgetful of the God power within them, and so are brought into condemnation.
"The Manasseh mentality usually goes from one step of Baalim worship to another, until it exhausts them all. Luck, chance, sorcery, familiar spirits, and wizardry are some of the avenues through which the Manasseh mind attempts to regulate its life. Astrology, palmistry, the guidance of spirits, mesmerism, hypnotism, are some of the many modern forms of denial of God. Indulged in for a time they lead the negative mind into deeper and deeper bondage, until the transgressed law reacts upon the transgressor and he is put 'in chains' and bound 'with fetters' and carried away to Babylon, or utter confusion. The way of escape is through prayer to God and return to His 'city of peace' within the soul, Jerusalem." Metaphysical Bible Dictionary (1955), p. 87.

And, the 'good intentions' of false masters:

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." Daniel Webster.

In 1868, Judge Henry Clay Dean warned of the new 'masters' waiting in the wings, better known as 'bondholders':

"Just here the tax list ends, as it reaches the mortgagor, the bondholder who owns the mortgage remainder of the real estate, and received the tax lists, stamp duties, excise and tariffs, to pay up the interests accruing upon the mortgage notes.
"This gentleman is our master, who has so long reveled in wealth that he does not know his own slaves when he meets them abroad, and has not for them that affection which association, responsibility, and interest given to the ordinary master. These are our untitled nobility. They are destitute of employment, indeed, they need no employment, every man who wields a plow, spade, anvil, loom or machinery of any kind, is his servant. Every woman who superintends a kitchen, garden, or boardinghouse, hands over to the bondholder all her surplus earnings after making daily tributes upon the necessaries of life, enjoying no luxuries for herself. The bondholder sits like a blind beggar by the way-side, shuts his eyes, extends his hands and cries of each one passing, in his piteous tones, 'can't you give a poor man a penny.' Lamartine, Kossuth, O'Connell, and all the renowned beggars, public and private, of modern times, in presenting the wants, claims, and necessities of themselves, or the mendicant whom they represent, are not to be compared with these indigent, honest, disinterested, patriotic, nay, more,--philanthropic bondholders.
"The tariff upon food, raiment, medicines, and all that we necessarily use, is a system of allowance as exact but more stinted, that has ever been imposed upon any laboring slaves, and when labor itself gives out, the laborer no longer of service to his master, is carted to the alms house, where his allowance [Social Security check, unemployment compensation, welfare checks] and helplessness are complete.
"Like every other system of slavery, the law making power is in the hands of the master. The laboring masses are allowed to vote, but if he is a tenant, the landlord controls his vote or ousts him. If he is a laborer, the employer follows him to the polls, examines his ticket, puts a spy upon his track, and dismisses him for an attempt to vote against his will.
"[*330] If he is an operative, the manufacturer notifies him that all the hands are expected to vote the ticket of the proprietor, upon penalty of loss of employment.
"If he is a house or body servant, he is disposed of in a more summary manner.
"The bank holds the same rod in quiet ways over its debtors, endorsers, and dependencies, who are expected to sustain the power that sustains them. The control is as complete over the polls as was ever held by Spartan over helot, by Jew over bondman, by Russian over serf, by master over slave.
"The footprints of the master precedes the slave into legislative halls, where he assumes the arrogant airs and commands in the same authoritative tones. Here the people's servants are bought with their own money, to betray their sacred trust, and add a new thread to the screw to press them down, or remove a link to shorten the chain which will bind them more closely to the car-wheel of oppression.
"In the court, the Judge is overawed with social proscription or sweetened with presents which could not be taken by an honest judiciary, or be given in evidence as bribes.
"Like courts, juries, misdirected by judges and overawed or corrupted by capital, or failing in this, attorneys are bought up, witnesses are intimidated or corrupted, until the slave suitor gladly abandons his [rightful and legal] claim and leaves the court in disgust [and frustration]. The failure of one discourages the rest, and capital as thoroughly subdues the contestant, as the master would subjugate his slave by the bludgeon or cat o' nine tails.
"Such is the multiform slavery of Americans by this debt, that every element of servitude has been transferred from the worst European governments to our American system.
"The Austrian and Prussian, flying [fleeing] from Provost Marshals, military government, arbitrary power and oppressive taxation, to preserve the credit of the reigning tyrant, comes to America to be greeted by all the odious appendages from which he has fled in Europe.
"The Irishman flies [flees] to escape a government made up of spies, adventurers and domestic enemies, to see the same style of government revived in the United States.
"[*331] Military establishments to suppress free enquiry, are the accompaniment of this style of government, which are always necessary to collect taxes and transfer the lands when the mortgages are foreclosed to secure the payment of taxes.
"Is this not slavery, or is it robbery, which takes your labor before it has been reduced to money, by levying taxes which must be deducted from your crops, in tariffs which must be paid in the purchase of your food and raiment? What is taxation without an equivalent, but rents? What are tariffs but subsidies, and what is slavery but the exactions of tariffs and taxes, which consume your labor and the time employed? What is transmitted debt but transmitted slavery, in its most deceitful form, against which philosophers have denounced as cruel and unjust; for the relief of which genius has no invention and industry no power?
"To free the country of these tariffs and relieve it of this taxation, and emancipate ourselves from the crushing weight of this exhausting and exhaustless slavery, is the primary and overshadowing necessity of our political and social existence." Judge Henry Clay Dean, Crimes of the Civil War, (1868) p. 328-331.

Admissions and Confessions

Part Six:

The Bankruptcy of A. Lincoln's United States

written and compiled by John Joseph

(continued from Issue the Seventeenth)

It should be noted that the "privileges" arise from "private law" and are handled privately by international law administered by the military when dealing with the national government, because equal rights to make equal profits, from equally dispensed benefits exists solely in commerce, which the military power is and was pledged to protect:

"Privilegium est quasi privata lex--A privilege is, as it were, a private law." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim", p. 2155.
"The law merchant, or mercantile law, was the comprehensive body of privately administered rules and customs enforced as law [not Law] [*330] by merchants throughout the medieval commercial world, and, especially, in the Italian city-states. Each market, fair and seaport had local merchant courts where a jury of merchants would settle controversies with efficient dispatch upon the basis of mercantile custom. From Italy, the law merchant spread to England, where it gradually underwent a centralization." Teevan and Smith, Business Law (1949), vol. II, p. 329-330.
"In order that the army or navy regulations should have the force of law they must not contravene the existing statutory law, but must be consistent therewith. U.S. v. Symonds, 120 U.S. 46, 7 S.Ct. 411, 30 L.Ed. 557; U.S. v. Webster, 26 F.Cas.No. 16,658, 2 Ware 46; Roberts v. U.S., 44 Ct.Cl. 411; Adams v. U.S., 42 Ct.Cl. 191." 5 C.J. 297.

So, all the "Congress" does is re-write the statutes to make and allow the administration of 'civil affairs' easier to manage by the military arm to collect revenue to pay the bonds--it still looks like law, and the badges worn look real, and they talk like they are the law and, etc. And it enlarged the commercial business of the federal courts at the same time, because now the debt of allegiance was between the executive branch from the proclamations of September 22, 1862, and January 1, 1863; the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended; and, the so-called Fourteenth Amendment of which the courts take notice of the political acts of the political departments of government, but Christians forgot to take notice any of this because they began filing Title 42 "civil rights" suits, and followed a god unknown to them and certainly not recognized by the One Only True God:

"DEBTOR. One who owes a debt; he who may be compelled to pay a claim or demand. Anyone liable on a claim whether due or to become due. Cozart v. Barnes, C.C.A.S.C., 240 F. 935, 938.
"The term may be used synonymously with 'obligor,' 'mortgagor,' and the like. McDuffie v. Faulk, 214 Ala. 221, 107 So. 61, 62." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 492. [Emphasis added.] [All Good and Lawful Christians are obligors to Christ, because He paid the price for all of them.]
"The condition of peace or war, public or civil, in a legal sense, must be determined by the political department of the government, and the courts are bound by that decision." U.S. v. One Hundred Twenty Nine Packages (1862), Fed.Cas.No. 15,941.
"The recent case of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L.Ed. 1188, 58 S.Ct. 817, April 25, 1938, in overruling Swift v. Tyson (1842), 16 Pet. 1, 10 L.Ed. 865, holds that the (legislative) federal courts must follow state rules and decisions in cases where federal citizenship [created by the aforementioned acts] is invoked solely because of diversity of citizenship. This holding has been repeated and reiterated in Ruhlin v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 304 U.S. 203, 82 L.Ed. 1290, 58 S.Ct. 860; Rosenthal v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 304 U.S. 263, 82 L.Ed. 1330, 58 S.Ct. 874; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Jackson, 304 U.S. 261, 82 L.Ed. 1329, 58 S.Ct. 871, all decided in May, 1938." Hagendorn, The Law of Suretyship and Guaranty (1938), 35, pp. 26-27.
"For all the gods [secular magistrates, judges, ad nauseam] of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens." Ps 96:5.
"And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days. Now when they shall fall, they shall be helped with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries [enticements of benefit, privilege, gain, advantage]. And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed. And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods [by granting "civil rights" through the waging of war against Christians], and shall prosper [because of the funding system created] till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done. Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces [fate, chance, "military necessity"]: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things [commerce]. Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain [revenue districts]." Dan 11:33-39. [This describes the eversor Abraham Lincoln, the first Hun in America. Christians were deluded by this anti-Christian man. The god he followed is the god followed by any one who files a Title 42 suit.]

This is the equity to which the Progress Development Corporation case is referring. The equity exists between the 'obligor-franchisee,' civil rights acceptor, and 'obligee-franchisor,' the de facto government of Abraham Lincoln.

Coincidentally, the interstate and foreign commerce of America, all in international law, picked up during and after Lincoln's War because of the expanded 'human resources' now available:

"Earlier methods furnished a model for later business development. By 1860 nearly all the basic elements of modern 'big business' had come into operation. The agricultural yield [commercial] had been greatly enlarged by increased population, increased acreage, and improved farm [commercial] implements. Manufacturing had passed definitely into the factory state, and the output of American factories was supplying the greater part of the domestic need, as well as the foreign demand for certain sorts of machinery--notably sewing machines and harvesting machinery. Commerce and trade in the products of farm and factory were stimulated and made easy by the opening up of more extensive transportation systems, by the rapid spread of the telegraph system, by the increasing formation of stock companies to finance large enterprises, and by the multiplication of banks.
"Business of the future was to deal in larger units than those of this earlier period, but its basic elements and the agencies through which it was to operate were developments and adaptations of these earlier methods rather than new inventions.
"The War between the North and the South aided business. As we have already seen the War between the North and the South caused great and rapid expansion in all forms of industry and business in the North. Farms and factories had to supply the needs of the armies. Mines and furnaces had to furnish material for building engines and rolling stock and for the rapidly lengthening railroad mileage.
"The discovery of new resources of oil, coal, and iron ore; the rapid expansion of our foreign commerce; and the creation of the national banking system all furnished new opportunities for speculation and for profits. [Shows the false bottom of Lincoln's world which exists today.] The tremendous expansion thus begun in the later 1860's continued through the first third of the twentieth century.
* * *
"The national banking system was inaugurated by Congress in 1863 chiefly to restore order to the currency. By this law, a bank wishing to issue notes must first buy government bonds and deposit them with the Treasurer of the United States. It could then issue bank notes to the value of the bonds, which were held by the government as security. Thus the notes were safe. In order to make them more secure and give them ready circulation, the law required each bank to keep in its vaults a certain amount of specie with which to redeem its notes on demand.
"The important banking tendencies in the twentieth century were the decrease in the great number of banks, the concentration of banking capital in a small number of banks in the large cities, and extension of banker control over industry, business, and transportation. [Which gives the president more control over it through the interstate commerce clause.]
* * *
"Regulation of business began in the states. The story of the regulation of business in the United States began in the states. By 1890 twenty-seven states and territories had taken steps to curb business combinations and break up trusts. State regulation of business, however, shortly proved ineffective. It was ineffective for two main reasons. In the first place, the larger business corporations that arose after the War between the North and the South were interstate in character. Incorporated [*519] in only a single state, they did business in several states--sometimes in all the states. This made regulation by a single state very difficult. In the second place, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution made the federal government the protector of the rights and property of 'persons'--which included corporations. A great deal of state legislation fixing rates or charges or hours of labor was declared void by the courts on the ground that it deprived such corporate 'persons' of rights or property [mere fiction denoting interests] contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment. As a result of these two factors, the task of regulating business and transportation companies had to be assumed by the federal government." Barker and Commager, Our Nation (1942), pp. 500-502. [Emphasis and insertions added.]

Along with the increase of foreign and domestic commerce, the creation of a national banking system, and the creation of "civil rights", the revenues of the Federal government increased, because a new labor pool under the newly created "civil rights" existed, which could be tapped at will, to begin making those payments to the bondholders, noted by our esteemed Brother Henry Clay Dean:

"Legislative grants are contracts within the obligation clause of the Constitution." Blease v. Charleston & W.C. Ry. Co., 144 S.E. 233, 239.
"Franchise is a contract." City of Niles v. Michigan Gas and Electric, 262 N.W. 900, 902, 273 Mich. 255.
"Franchises are privileges derived from the Government, vested in either individuals or private or public corporations, and are of various kinds
"The grant of a franchise is in the nature of a vested right of property; subject, however, in most cases, to the performance of conditions and duties on the part of the grantees. They generally involve important duties of a public character, often onerous upon the grantees. They are necessarily exclusive [private] in their character, otherwise their value would be liable to be destroyed, or seriously impaired. So long as the grantee fulfills the conditions and performs the duties imposed upon him by the terms of the grant, he has a vested right which cannot be taken away, or otherwise impaired by the Government, any more than other property." California State Telegraph Co. v. Alta Telegraph Co. (1863) 22 Cal. 398, 422. [Emphasis and insertion added.]
"A franchise is bi-lateral in nature and imposes obligations [debts] while conferring rights [privileges], so that acceptance is necessary to prove that grantee has undertaken those obligations [debts]." Greenberg v. City of New York, 274 N.Y.S. 4. [Obligations are debts--see DEBTOR, ante.]
"Where the power of taxation exercised by Congress, is warranted by the Constitution, as to mode and subject [its own legislated civil rights], it is necessarily, unlimited in its nature. Congress may prescribe the basis [its own legislated civil rights], fix the rates, and require payment as it may deem proper. Within the limits of the Constitution it is supreme in its action. No power of supervision or control is lodged in either of the other departments of the government [Actions involving taxes are heard either in the Tax Court, or Federal District courts, both creations of "Congress."]." Pacific Insurance Co. v. Soule (18__), 7 Wall 433, 19 L.Ed. 95, 98. [Emphasis and insertions added.]
"The taxing power is given in the most comprehensive terms. The only limitations imposed are: that direct taxes, including the capitation tax shall be apportioned; that duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform; and that no duties shall be imposed on articles exported from any State. With these exceptions, the exercise of the power is, in all respects, unfettered." ibid. at page 99.
"FUNDS. Cash on hand: as, A B in in funds to pay my bill on him. Stocks: as, A B has one thousand dollars in the funds. By public funds is understood the taxes, customs, etc., appropriated by the government for the discharge of its obligations.
"In England 'The Funds' are synonymous with 'Government Funds,' or 'Public Funds;' 5 H.L.C. 280; and generally mean funded securities guaranteed by the English government; 27 L.J.Ch. 448; but do not include foreign bonds guaranteed by England; 2 Coll. 324; nor bank stock; 7 H.L.C. 273." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 1324. [Emphasis added.]

Which means that those engaged in swollen commerce, "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil," are now in a class titled "taxpayers"; and, are the ones to whom this bankruptcy applies, because the United States went into bankruptcy to give the benefit of the protection of the "military power of the executive branch" which gave the "civil rights" these commercial persons and the other "low and lawless" created by Congressional legislation and their licensed "interests," under commercia belli contracts:

"The taxpayers enjoy the benefits and protection of the laws of the United States [Lincoln's de facto government]. They are under a duty to support the government and are not beyond the reach of its taxing power." Helvering v. Gerhardt (1938), 304 U.S. 405, 58 S.Ct. 969, 82 L.Ed. 1427.
"American citizenship implies not only rights but also duties, not the least of which is the payment of taxes." U.S. v. Lucienne D'Hotelle de Benitez Rexach (1977), 558 F.2d 37. [See also Cook v. Tait (1924), 265 U.S. 47, 44 S.Ct. 444, 68 L.Ed. 895 & United States of America v. Slater (1982), 545 F.Supp. 179, 182.]
"COMMERCIA BELLI. War contracts. Contracts between nations at war, or their subjects.
"Agreements entered into by belligerents, either in time of peace to take effect in the event of war, or during the war itself, by which arrangement is made for non-hostile intercourse. They may take the form of armistices, truces, capitulations, cartels [industry sectors, free mail delivery on a post route], passports [immigration entry], safe-conducts [driver's license], safeguards. 1 Kent 159; 2 Opp. 274.
"Contracts between citizens of one belligerent and those of another, or between citizens of one belligerent and the other belligerent. They may take the form of ransom bills (q.v.), bills of exchange drawn by prisoners of war, or receipts for requisitions. 1 Kent 104." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 337.
"CARTEL. In trade and commerce. A combination of producers or any product joined together to control its production, sale, and price, and to obtain a monopoly in any particular industry or commodity. Also, an association by agreement of companies or sections of companies having common interests, designed to prevent extreme or unfair competition and allocate markets, and to promote the interchange of knowledge resulting from scientific and technical research, exchange of patent rights, and standardization of products. U.S. v. National Lead Co., D.C.N.Y., 63 F.Supp. 513.
"State of War. An agreement between two hostile powers for the delivery of prisoners or deserters, or authorizing certain non-hostile intercourse between each other which would otherwise be prevented by the state of war; for example, agreements for intercommunication by post [free delivery], telegraph, telephone, railway. II op. 282.
"Duel. A written challenge to a duel." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 270. See also Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 424.

This helps to explain why most of the "process" being written today is a "bill of exchange" which is carried as an "asset" on the accounting books of all de facto jurisdictions today. And if you look at the bankruptcy of the County of Orange in California, you'll see that it went bankrupt because about one hundred twenty million "dollars" of tickets had to be written off. It is part of the "cartel" during war time.

Your house mortgage is an example of a commercia belli contract and you become part and parcel of the problem. How do you know for sure? Go to your bank and look at the flag displayed.

"[A flag is] an emblem of a nation; usually made of cloth and flown from a staff [not a pike]. From a military standpoint flags are of two classes, those flown from stationary masts over army posts, and those carried by troops in formation. The former are referred to by the general name flags. The latter are called colors when carried by mounted troops. Colors and standards are more nearly square than flags and are made of silk with a knotted fringe of yellow on three sides.
"Use of the flag. The most general and appropriate use of the flag is as a symbol of authority and power." The National Encyclopedia (1944), Vol. 4, p. 326. Edited by Henry Suzzallo, Ph.D., Sc.D., LL.D. Published by P. F. Collier and Son Corporation, New York. [Emphasis and insertion added.]
"The placing of a fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag and the arrangement of the stars in the union are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but are within the discretion of the President as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy." 34 Op.Atty.-Gen. 483.
"The use of such a fringe is prescribed in current Army Regulation, No. 260-10." 34 Ops. Atty.-Gen. 483, 485.
"FRINGE. A decoration of twisted thread or metal attached to the edges of a flag, usually a color or parade flag (19-1). Normally used only on the three outer edges, [*16] it may appear on from one to four of the sides of flag and at the ends of a cravat." Flags (1975), pp. 15-16.
"NATIONAL FLAG. A flag representing an independent state, especially a nation-state, but by extension the flag of formerly independent states and of non-independent national groups. Although chiefly associated with use by private citizens, either on land or at sea, the term is frequently applied to a design used in any one of six principal functions; see civil ensign, civil flag, state ensign, state flag, war ensign, war flag." Flags (1975), p. 19. [Emphasis added.]

See also Executive Order 10834, August 21, 1959 and 24 F.R. 6865 for further information on the flag. The same also applies to 501(c)-3 "churches." They are created and established by the bankrupt military power exercising jurisdiction in and over "civil affairs." The flag flown indoors is the same flag. Therefore, these churches are God-less and lawless commercial entities engaged in fleecing the flock for the military power. This situation is similar to what the Lord says:

"Ephraim, he hath mixed himself among the people; Ephraim is a cake not turned. Strangers [see definition of STRANGERS, post] have devoured his strength, and he knoweth it not: yea, gray hairs are here and there upon him, yet he knoweth not. And the pride of Israel testifieth to his face: and they do not return to the LORD their God, nor seek him for all this. Ephraim also is like a silly dove without heart: they call to Egypt [the house of bondage through ignorance], they go to Assyria [descended from Babylon]. When they shall go, I will spread my net upon them; I will bring them down as the fowls of the heaven; I will chastise them, as their congregation hath heard. Woe unto them! For they have fled from me: destruction unto them! Because they have transgressed against me: though I have redeemed them, yet they have spoken lies against me. And they have not cried unto me with their heart, when they howled upon their beds: they assemble themselves for corn and wine, and they rebel against me. Though I have bound and strengthened their arms, yet do they imagine mischief against me. They return, but not to the most High: they are like a deceitful bow: their princes shall fall by the sword for the rage of their tongue: this shall be their derision in the land of Egypt [house of bondage]." Hos. 7:8-12. [Emphasis and insertion added.]

The national bank, or a member of the Federal Reserve System, then is a weapon of war of the President in the field wielded against corporations, trusts, partnerships, natural persons--all God-less entities--to chastise them and make them feel the evils of commerce: "Jus quo universitates utuntur est idem quod habent privati--The law which governs corporations is the same as that which governs individuals." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2141; "Homo vocabulum est naturae; persona juris civilis-- Man is a term of nature; person of civil law." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2136.

In commerce there is no distinction between "commercial citizens" and "commercial residents," because both are the same:

"Citizens of the United States have at least the same rights and privileges as resident aliens." Salla v. Monroe County (1977), 395 N.Y.S.2d 366, 90 Misc.2d 427, motion granted Lisbon Contractors, Inc. v. Monroe County (1977), 404 N.Y.S.2d 843, 43 N.Y. 985, 375 N.E.2d 1232, aff'd 409 N.Y.S.2d 903, 64 A.D.2d 437, aff'd 423 N.Y.S.2d 878, 48 N.Y.2d 514, 399 N.E.2d 909, cert. den. Abrams v. Salla, 100 S.Ct. 1836, 446 U.S. 909, 64 L.Ed.2d 262.
"As a general rule, every citizen of the United States, regardless of his residence, and every resident of the United States, regardless of his citizenship, is taxable on his income without respect to its geographic source. The constitutional power to impose the tax on such a world wide basis is sustained by Cook v. Tait (1924), 265 U.S. 47, 44 S.Ct. 444." Cases and Materials on Federal Taxation (1955), by Paul W. Bruton and Raymond J. Bradley, edited by Warren A. Seavey, West Publishing Co., p. 115. [Commonality is in "residence."]
"Since Const. Amend. 5, does not require equal protection of the laws, as does Amendment 14, applying to state action, cases decided under Amendment 14 have no application to federal taxes, where the only uniformity prescribed is the territorial uniformity required by Article I, 8 [exposing the federal law merchant]." La Belle Iron Works v. United States (1921), 256 U.S. 377, 41 S.Ct. 528.

This is the reason for the census of residents taken today, to check the bottom line of the "balance sheet":

"The census taken by the United States Secretary of Commerce under 13 U.S.C.S. 141 and used for congressional reapportionment is within the control of the President of the United States, since the President may be involved in the policy making tasks of his cabinet members whether or not his involvement is explicitly required by statute." Franklin v. Massachusetts (1992), 112 S.Ct. 2767, 120 L.Ed.2d 636. [Emphasis added.]

Those blood soaked, phoney, filthy, evil war bonds that Judge Dean condemned so handily still are not paid off today. They are carried today, and in all probability, will never be paid. That doesn't concern the bondholder--your worship through extracted or compelled performance by or through your ignorance of all this is all the bondholder wants. Do you submit to the bondholder, or Christ?

"And if we attend to the nature of the argument with which the the apostle here enforces the duty of submission to the higher powers, we shall find it to such an one, as concludes not in favour of submission to all who bear the title of rulers, in common; but only, to those who actually perform the duty of rulers, by exercising a reasonable and just authority, for the good of human society. This is a point which it will be proper to enlarge upon; because the question before us turns very much upon the truth or falsehood of this position. It is obvious, then, in general, that the civil ruler whom the apostle here speaks of, and obedience to whom he presses upon Christians as a duty, are good rulers, such as are in the exercise of their office and power, benefactors to society [not those who rule to save the bondholder's investment]. Such they are described to be, throughout this passage. Thus it is said, that they are not a terror to good works, but to the evil; and that they attend continually upon this very thing. St. Peter gives the same account of rulers: They are for a praise to them that do well, and the punishment of evil doers. It is manifest that this character and the description of rulers, agrees only to such as are rulers in fact, as well as in name: to such as govern well, and act agreeably to their office. And the apostle's argument for submission to rulers, is wholly built and grounded upon a presumption that they do in fact answer this character; and is of no force at all upon the supposition of the contrary. If rulers are a terror to good works, and not to the evil; if they are not ministers for good to society, but for evil and distress, by violence and oppression; if they execute wrath upon sober, peaceable persons, who do their duty as members of society; and suffer rich and honorable knaves to escape with impunity; if instead of attending continually upon the good work of advancing the public welfare, they attend only upon the gratification of their own lust and pride, and ambition, to the destruction of the public welfare; if this be the case, it is plain that the apostle's argument for submission does not reach them; they are not the same, but different persons from those whom he characterizes.
"If it be said, that the apostle here uses another argument for submission to the higher powers, besides that which is taken from the usefulness of their office to civil society, when properly discharged and executed; namely, that their power is from God; that they are ordained of God; and that they are God's ministers: And if it be said, that this argument for submission to them will hold good, although they do not exercise their power for the benefit, but for the ruin, and destruction of human society; this objection was obviated, in part, before. Rulers have authority from God to do mischief. They are not God's ordinance, or God's ministers, in any other sense as it is by his permission and providence, that they are exalted to bear rule; and as magistracy duly exercised, and authority rightly applied, in the enacting and executing good laws,--laws tempered and accommodated to the common welfare of the subjects, must be supposed to be agreeable to the will of the beneficent author and supreme Lord of the universe; whose kingdom ruleth over all; and whose tender mercies are over all his works. It is BLASPHEMY to call tyrants and oppressors, God's ministers. They are more properly the messengers of SATAN to buffet us. No rulers are properly God's ministers, but such as are just, ruling in the fear of God. When once magistrates act contrary to their office, and the end of their institution; when they rob and ruin the public, instead of being guardians of its peace and welfare; they immediately cease to be the ordinance and ministers of God; and no more deserve that glorious character, than common pirates and highwaymen. So that whenever that argument for submission fails, which is grounded upon the usefulness of magistracy to civil society, (as it always does when magistrates do hurt to society instead of good) the other argument, which is taken from their being the ordinance of God, must necessarily fail also; no person of a civil character being God's minister, in the sense of the apostle, any farther than he performs God's will, by exercising a just and reasonable authority; and ruling for the good of the subject.
"Thus, upon a careful review of the apostle's reasoning in this passage, it appears that his arguments to enforce submission, are of such a nature, as to conclude only in favor of submission to such as he [the apostle] himself describes; i.e. such as rule for the good of society, which is the only end of their institution. Common tyrants, and public oppressors, are not entitled to obedience from their subjects, by virtue of any thing here laid down by the inspired apostle." Rev. Jonathan Mayhew, in a sermon titled "Unlimited Submission" (1750), from Louis Hacker, The Shaping of the American Tradition, pp. 114-115. [Emphasis and insertions added.]
"If it be our duty, for example, to obey our king merely for this reason, that he rules for the public welfareit follows, by a parity of reason, that when he turns tyrant, and makes his subjects his prey to devour and destroy, instead of his charge to defend and cherish, we are bound to throw off our allegiance to him, and to resistNot to discontinue our allegiance in this case would be to join with the sovereign in promoting the slavery and misery of that society, the welfare of which we ourselves, as well as our sovereign, are indispensably obliged to secure and promote, as far as in us lies.
"The king is as much bound by his oath not to infringe the legal rights of the people as the people are bound to yield subjection to him. From whence it follows, that as soon as the prince sets himself up above the law, he loses the king in the tyrant. He does, to all intents and purposes, unking himself by acting out of and beyond that sphere which the constitution allows him to move in; and in such cases has no more right to be obeyed than any inferior officer who acts beyond his commission. The subject's obligation to allegiance then ceases, of course; and to resist him is no more rebellion than to resist any foreign invader." Rev. Jonathan Mayhew in a sermon titled "Unlimited Submission," cited in Clinton Rossiter, Seedtime of the Republic, pp. 241, 242. [Emphasis added.]
"Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin [bankruptcy]; but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. For sin [this bankruptcy] shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law [proclamations, codes, rules and regulations of men], but under [God's] grace.Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey: whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" Rom 6:13-16. [Insertions added.]
"Ye are bought with a price; be ye not the servants of men." 1 Cor 7:23. [Forego the novation imposed by un-Godly men for Christ has finished all that needed to be fulfilled.]

It is to be remembered, that:

"This great debt is a purely human affair, not invested with a single attribute of Divinity, and must be subjected to all of the examinations, criticisms, disputations, and legal ordeals peculiar to all other mere indebtedness, and it must not be forgotten that it is not a part of the history of the world, that mankind grow impatient for opportunities to pay public debts. Senator Sumner once declared that his 'people were clamoring for heavier taxation,' and were indignant because they were not permitted to contribute more freely of their money to the support of the Government. I confess frankly that I never knew just such a case.
* * *
"The debt of the United States, whether in bonds as the foundation of a hateful aristocracy, or in banks, the engine of perpetual illegitimate speculation, will ultimately be contested before the highest tribunals known to the contests of time--the frail, the fickle, treacherous court of popular will--yet only less potent than the decrees of the high chancery above.
"When the issues in the debt are fully made out, every step of the dangerous road through which we have passed, will be examined with a care which shall make men dizzy in contemplation of the chasms beneath, and the fearful, crumbling precipices [*434] along the tottering edges of which a drunken nation has staggered, and reeled, singing her bacchanalian songs, leaving sepulchres of the immortal dead, churches of the living God, gardens, cities, and plantations, the discoveries of science, the works of art, and the monuments of religion, in ashes, as the only landmarks by which their hateful march can be retraced. The is all that will remain of a cultivated refinement and peerless civilization.
"The constitutionality of the purposes for which appropriations were made, and the consequent debts contracted, will be carefully examined, if not before, will, after the furious fires of passion have died out, and the bitterness of strife has been dissipated in the changes of time.
"The contest will involve every thing at every step of time. A national debt, standing on the rails of the track of the advancing destiny of a great country,--a millstone hanging around the neck of labor,--an impassable gulf, with its boiling maelstrom lying between and separating the fortunes of the rich from the daily wants of the poor,--a treasure from which bribery draws her legislative poison, and corrupts the fountains of justice.
"This debt is a stream of power, which accumulates as it sweeps swiftly on, increasing in volume, to the vast sea of the future.
"This financial despotism on the one side has arrayed its platoons, companies, battalions, regiments, and grand army of assessors, collectors, and spies, to possess the property and discover of the liberty of the people. Against them, on the other side, are the people, who array their forces.
"The eighteen hundred thousand [Christian] citizens who refused to vote for Abraham Lincoln, in A. D. 1864.
"The whole Southern people who resisted his usurpation[s] with arms.
"The millions of poor people who have been ruined by the war.
"The soldiers, and their ruined families, who have nothing left of their meager savings, and grow restive in contemplation of the fortunes of contractors, and speculators, coined from the blood of their fallen comrades.
"The landholder, and every man who contributes to the support of the special, privileged, untaxed, and untitled bonded aristocracy. These are the parties to the great contest.
"[*435] When the issue is fairly made up, the trial will be short, speedy, and decisive. In this terrible conflict, the empty clamor of 'loyalty,' the clap-trap of 'national life,' will pass away with their concomitant slang phrases. Of all these evanescent things, the people will grow weary, and time will administer her own remedy. Debts are not the more enduring, because the more costly luxuries of party organization.
"In this struggle for liberty, there will be a thorough canvass; the power of the legislation which proposes to fasten the yoke upon the necks of an unwilling people as an appendage, if not an ornament, to their existence." Judge Henry Clay Dean (1868), Crimes of the Civil War, pp. 433-435. [Insertion added.]

Scripture and the Law Merchant

(continued from Issue the Seventeenth)

NOTE: the Scripture cited herein is from the 1611 Authorized Version, aka The King James.

In the previous part of this series we looked at the usage of the word 'merchandise' in Scripture. In this part, we will examine the usage of the word 'merchant.'

The word 'merchant' in the singular case is found in Scripture twelve times, while the word 'merchants' in the plural sense is found twenty-eight times, and the word 'merchants' in the possessive sense is found only once, with 'merchantmen' occurring twice. Thus, 'merchant' and its variants are found forty-three times in Scripture and we will examine these words in the order in which they appear, without reference to their tense.

The verses in which these words are found are: Genesis 23:16, 37:28; 1 Kings 10:15, 10:28; 2 Chronnicles 1:16, 9:14; Nehemiah 3:31-32, 13::20; Job 41:6; Proverbs 31:14, 31:24; Song of Solomon 3:6; Isaiah 23:22, 8, 11; Isaiah 47:15; Ezekiel 117::4, 27:3, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20-24; 27:36, 38:13; Hosea 12:7; Nahum 3:16; Zephaniah 1:11; Matthew 13:45; Revelations 18:3, 11, 15, 23.

In Genesis 23 we find the story of the death of Abraham's wife, Sarah, and in 23:16 Abraham buys the field and cave wherein he will bury her.

"And Abraham hearkened unto Ephron; and Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver, which he had named in the audience of the sons of Heth, four hundred shekels of silver, current money with the merchant."

That there is a striking difference between the workings of God's Law and man's law is seen in Genesis 37:28 within the story of the evil doing of Joseph's brothers. It is clear that the merchantmen mentioned herein, were not believers in God's Law because they sold Joseph to the Ishmeelites. As we have seen before, the restoration of the City of Jerusalem, there were still those who were doing things that were not permitted to be done on the Sabbath. Apparently, merchants were among the guilty and thus they were made to stay out of the City on the Sabbath to keep them from violating the Law.

"So the merchants and sellers of all kind of ware lodged without Jerusalem once or twice."

In Job 41 there is a series of verses on Leviathon which are part of a series of challenges from God to Job and in speaking of Leviathon, God says,

"Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?"

In the last chapter of Proverbs, we find a description of a virtuous and Godly woman. In verse 14, she is likened to the merchants ships where,

"She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar."

Later in the same chapter of Proverbs the description of a Godly woman details how she makes money for the household.

"She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant."

The Song of Solomon has been variously interpreted as an allegory of the relationship of Christ to his bride, which is the church. In chapter 3, the bride searches for her lost love whom at last she finds in verse 6.

"Who is this that cometh out of the wilderness like pillars of smoke, perfumed with myrrh and frankincense, with all powders of the merchant?"

In Isaiah and Ezekiel, two great works of prophecy, we find many references to merchants with four cites found in Isaiah, and well over a dozen in Ezekial, especially in chapters 17 and 27. In the prophecies of Isaiah we again find condemnations that are to come on the merchant cities of Tyre and Zidon (Sidon). The isle referred to in 23:2 is Tyre. Verses 2, 8, and 11 of chapter 23 are here published together.

2. "Be still, ye inhabitants of the isle; thou whom the merchants of Zidon, that pass over the sea, have replenished."
8. "Who hath taken this counsel against Tyre, the crowning city, whose merchants are princes, whose traffickers are the honourable of the earth?"
11. "He stretched out his hand over the sea, he shook the kingdoms: the LORD hath given a commandment against the merchant city, to destroy the strong holds thereof."

In the 47th chapter of Isaiah, Israel and Jerusalem are described as the daughter of the Chaldeans. This is directly related to the fact that Chaldea was a nation that skillfully employed the techniques of merchants of debt to weaken a nation before it was conquered by the army. Thus, the Chaldeans would go into a country and offer loans at low interest with special conditions which virtually guaranteed that the debtor would never pay off the debt. As this practice spread throughout a nation, it so burdened the middle class that it ceased to exist and hence, the country was ripe for take-over. But, as shown in verse 15, when the conquest comes, even the merchants of debt will abandon the nation.

"Thus shall they be unto thee with whom thou hast laboured, even thy merchants, from thy youth: they shall wander every one to his quarter; none shall save thee."

In the 17th chapter of Ezekiel we find a parable spoken against Israel in the form of two eagles, one good and one bad. The first brings prosperity, but when Israel turns away to the second, judgment comes. The reference to merchants is found in verse 4.

"He cropped off the top of his young twigs, and carried it into a land of traffick; he set it in a city of merchants."

Again, in the 27th chapter of Ezekiel we find the prophecies against Tyre, et al. But the prophecies are also against Judea and Jerusalem.

3. "And say unto Tyrus, O thou that art situate at the entry of the sea, which art a merchant of the people for many isles, Thus saith the Lord GOD; O Tyrus, thou hast said, I am of perfect beauty."
12. "Tarshish was thy merchant by reason of the multitude of all kind of riches; with silver, iron, tin, and lead, they traded in thy fairs."
13. "Javan, Tubal, and Meshech, they were thy merchants: they traded the persons of Nahum depicts the powerful imperialism of a despotic, pagan nation and declares the ultimate and certain triumph of God's justice and sovereignty. Here again, in such a system of tyranny, we find the merchants prominent in Nahum 3:16..
"Thou hast multiplied thy merchants above the stars of heaven: the cankerworm spoileth, and flieth away."

The last reference to merchants in the Old Testament is found in Zephaniah 1:11.

"Howl, ye inhabitants of Maktesh, for all the merchant people are cut down; all they that bear silver are cut off."

The first reference to the merchant in the New Testament is found in Matthew 13:45 and it occurs within the context of the Lord's description of the kingdom of heaven. Here, the Lord likens the obsessive passion of the merchant for gain, with what should be the passion of those in the kingdom of heaven.

"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls:"

The remaining references to merchants in the New Testament are found in the Book of the Revelations of Jesus Christ to John and are all found in chapter 18.

3. "For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies."
11. "And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more:"
15. "The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing,"
23. "And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived."

It is clear from this study of the merchant throughout the Scripture, that God does not look with favor upon the law of the merchant, since, in every case of judgment and prophecy against Israel and Judea we find that commercial activity was a prominent factor within the land when it was judged.

Thus, the nation that engages in such activities will be judged by God and punished for permitting such commercial activity to take place. We must note that the judgment is not directly because of commercial activity, since the judgment itself is earned from a much more pervasive apostasy of which commercial activity is but one manifestation of corruption, among many.

But, as we have pointed out in the News and in the Book of the Hundreds on many occasions, the law merchant is a corruption before God that seeks to advance a world view and religion that is not merely Un-Godly, but is clearly Anti-God and Anti-Christian. Particularly is this so with regard to the lending practices of merchants which are nothing more than slavery.

That we are not the first to note this is seen in the following extended quote from Crimes of the Civil War, by Judge Henry Clay Dean (1868), in which he draws the clear parallels between the slavery practiced in the South and the so-called Funding System of A. Lincoln which was launched during Lincoln's War Against All Christian States:

"The obligation of the slave to work for his master was purely a legal one; an investment of money under the protection of the law. If it were a sinful one, it was the sin of the law, not of the slaveholder. This relation we have repudiated with the full sum of three thousand millions of dollars of money legally invested in this particular interest. It is true that it was argued that this system [of slavery] was oppressive; so do I argue that the debt is oppressive beyond all endurance. It is argued that slavery was unjust; so do I argue that this funding system is unjust. It is argued that the system of slavery was cruel; that it was used to enslave the [*265] poor and helpless black man. So do I argue that the present debt is used as means to enslave the poor white man with the black man, to make them both the servants of the capitalist and bondholder.
It is emphatically presented, that the system of slavery was transmitted from the parents to innocent children yet unborn. So do I argue that the bonded system of our debt is being transmitted to innocent generations, who will be stinted of sustenance in their mother s womb, and oppressed all the days of their lives, to pay the penalty of their perpetual servitude to their taskmasters. But if such a repudiation in contravention of law, may be made under the plea of military necessity for the overthrow of a written constitution [and the free government erected thereunder], how much stronger is the argument of a civil necessity, for the perpetuity of a system of free government in which the distinction between the rich and the poor shall be merely of imagination? It is argued that African slavery created an overbearing aristocracy. So we argue that the bonds [held by Europeans] have created a most offensive oligarchy, that not only claims to rule society, but assumes to rule the government. Judge Henry Clay Dean, Crimes of the Civil War (1868), pp. 264 265. [Insertions added.]

The debt of the United States is slavery, which becomes more exacting as the debt increases in volume.

This debt has all the attributes of national and personal slavery, and fixes itself on the realty and personalty of the country.

Salmon P. Chase did not hesitate to publish to the world through his factotum, Cooke, that the debt was a first mortgage upon all the property of the United States.

This affects the title of the lands and leaves every man but a tenant upon his own property, who may be ousted by the mortgagee upon the first failure to meet the appointed instalment assessed in taxes. The mortgagee is pursuing the same oppressive and delusive course that is always pursued by every other mortgagee, with the intent to absorb the mortgagor.

Seeing that the land will always remain to be seized for the debt after every thing else fails, the mortgagor first absorbs the personal property of his victim, then executes his land and holds both the realty and personalty in forfeiture of payment.

Our creditor commences on food, raiment and medicines, which we must have if we live at all by tariffs, and takes at least one half before we are allowed to reduce them to possession. This strikes every body.

Then he continues, by exacting stamps [licenses] of every soul that can make a contract, pay a debt, or take a receipt; this includes all of the very poorest laborers.

Then he exacts an income tax upon every man who can make a thousand dollars per annum; this is to strike the young and [*329] thrifty classes, just entering upon active life, oftentimes with parents and invalid relatives to support. From him five percent is exacted. Slight taxes are imposed upon gross amusements, all to feed the greater vices of life.

Just here the tax list ends, as it reaches the mortgagor, the bondholder who owns the mortgage remainder of the real estate, and received the tax lists, stamp duties, excise and tariffs, to pay up the interests accruing upon the mortgage notes.

This gentleman is our master, who has so long reveled in wealth that he does not know his own slaves when he meets them abroad, and has not for them that affection which association, responsibility, and interest give to the ordinary master. These are our untitled nobility. They are destitute of employment, indeed, they need no employment, every man who wields a plow, spade, anvil, loom or machinery of any kind, is his servant. Every woman who superintends a kitchen, garden, or boardinghouse, hands over to the bondholder all her surplus earnings after making daily tributes upon the necessaries of life, enjoying no luxuries for herself. The bondholder sits like a blind beggar by the way side, shuts his eyes, extends his hands and cries of each one passing, in his piteous tones, can t you give a poor man a penny. Lamartine, Kossuth, O Connell, and all the renowned beggars, public and private, of modern times, in presenting the wants, claims, and necessities of themselves, or the mendicant whom they represent, are not to be compared with these indigent, honest, disinterested, patriotic, nay, more, philanthropic bondholders.

The tariff upon food, raiment, medicines, and all that we necessarily use, is a system of allowance as exact but more stinted, that has ever been imposed upon any laboring slaves, and when labor itself gives out, the laborer no longer of service to his master, is carted to the alms house, where his allowance [Social Security check, unemployment compensation, welfare checks] and helplessness are complete.

Like every other system of slavery, the law making power is in the hands of the master. The laboring masses are allowed to vote, but if he is a tenant, the landlord controls his vote or ousts him. If he is a laborer, the employer follows him to the polls, examines his ticket, puts a spy upon his track, and dismisses him for an attempt to vote against his will.

[*330] If he is an operative, the manufacturer notifies him that all the hands are expected to vote the ticket of the proprietor, upon penalty of loss of employment.

If he is a house or body servant, he is disposed of in a more summary manner.

The bank holds the same rod in quiet way over its debtors, endorsers, and dependencies, who are expected to sustain the power that sustains them. The control is as complete over the polls as was ever held by Spartan over helot, by Jew over bondman, by Russian over serf, by master over slave.

The footprints of the master precedes the slave into legislative halls, where he assumes the arrogant airs and commands in the same authoritative tones. Here the people s servants are bought with their own money, to betray their sacred trust, and add a new thread to the screw to press them down, or remove a link to shorten the chain which will bind them more closely to the car wheel of oppression."..........

The Origin of Today's "Property Tax"

(Footnotes ( {1} ) are found at the end of this article)

Take a look at the 'NOTICE' on page fifteen. This is the beginning of today's "property taxes." First look at the capitalization of the words. They are in all capital letters. During time of war, this is called a ruse de guerre--a strategem of war, a deceit.{1} It looks official, and sounds official, but deceit is not what God's Law allows. And it is to be remembered that Christianity is the foundation of Law in the states.{2} Notice that this tax was imposed only six years after the close of the hostilities of Lincon's War v. All Christian States. In other words it did not take long to launch the new program of "co-operative federalism"--"to get along you go along."

No Good and Lawful Christian owed this "tax" unless their "property" was in Limestone County. This is not a question of geography--but a question of Law. This is a question of venue{3}, which determines the limits of the jurisdiction of the military officers in imposing this "tax."{4} Property which is not on the assessor's rolls cannot be placed there by the assessor alone.{5} Therefore, the property cannot be in the venue of the County sans consent of the seizor of the land under the Sovereign Authority of our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, and Christ Himself.{6} Such permission must be evidenced in the Law governing the slave, for without it no transfer is effectual.{7} "Property" is a nebulous term, and is governed by the Lawgiver establishing the "person" exercising the "right" in the "thing."{8} Clearly, then it is a matter of the source of the right of the person in the thing which determines the governing law. Thus, if the source of the right in the property is from the proclamations of Lincoln (September 22, 1862, or January 1, 1863) or the 1866 Civil Rights Act (14 Stat. 27) of then it is clearly in the venue of the County to be taxed--it is a paper title{9} which is commercial paper and is defective or no true title under God. It is important to note that a Christian does not lose his vested Right in land held by and under the Authority God through our Sovereign Lord Jesus, the Christ, because of conquest. Further, Lincoln's Proclamations did not apply to Christians in bondage to our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ.{10}

The higher Law governs all beneath it. This is upheld and pronounced by numerous authorities. The only property which can be taken by conquest is public property, because it is public property which waged war.

And notice the receipt at the bottom of this notice. It says, "Received of C. G. Andrews eight and 25/100 Dollars, amount of Military Tax levied upon him to defray expenses of Martial Law in Limestone County." It takes money to put "peace officers" in the field{12} to maintain the peace of the State, or any of its "political subdivisions."{13} Whenever and wherever codes, rules, and regulations use the term "peace officer," this is a military officer exercising control in and over civil affairs{14} in the field of operations. This does not mean that martial law is done away with--it is merely masked to delude ignorant Christians into complacency and compliance.{15} This is contrary to Scripture, for Christians are always at war.{16}

Christians were to never lose dominion under God's Law, but were and are to occupy until Christ returns.{17} They are to do this using only God's Law, which is sufficient for Christ is our Wonderful Counsellor and example in using the Law of Our Sovereign, for whom we labour in the field (All Good and Lawful Christians are soldiers of Jesus, the Christ.) It is we who have been derelict in our Duty to our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, in not pressing His Crown Rights. True Repentance is required of all to return to His Peace and Asylum. The present condition of affairs confirms Scripture.{18}

What is happening is that there is a "protection racket" set up, whereby Christians are duped into believing that they need martial law{19} to govern them, sans God's Word and Law. To keep this illusion alive, the imposed government always points to a constitution ratified by persons of its own creation and this is never challenged by Good and Lawful Christians. This is war non flagrante bello{20} through open military occupation{21} by a bankrupt,{22} secular{23}, God-less, anti-Christian occupant, having no standing in Law, administrating a military government{24} lacking recognition{25} by Good and Lawful Christians. This is evident from the notice where it says the tax is imposed{26} "to defray the expenses of Military Commission{27} and State Troops now on duty in said County." Thus, a military occupation in which the military government is superior to the Lawful Christian government under God is a reversed role.{28} See also 12 Op. Atty-Gen. 182 (1867) which did not exist in these several consociated united states of America until after Lincoln's War v. All Christian states. The admission is made that the tax is without authority or right and the notice is a ruse de guerre by the employment of deception in time of war. There is no rule of law that compels one to pay for his own destruction; or, the destruction of the Christian community to which he belongs. Nor is there any law that compels a civil or military officer to violate God's Law in Scripture, which is the Supreme Law of the Land, and the basis of all law in the several consociated united states of America.{29} Lastly we come to the political question again. Military regulations have no validity where they interfere with the political rights of Good and Lawful Christians.{30} When Good and Lawful Christians decide they have had enough of the suspension of God's Law, it will return when they execute it in accordance with the Testament of Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ.{31} And last, we have the officer's nom de guerre{32}. This is not a true Christian name, but is a misnomer{33} done purposely. During time of war an alien enemy cannot maintain an action in his own name.{34}

If this evidence has not persuaded you of the gravity of the present situation here in these several united states of America, then clearly you are beyond hope at the present. Please ponder this in your heart and ask the Holy Spirit to guide you in the Word of God for the knowledge, wisdom and understanding of God's Word and how to apply it in your life so that your seed may not live in the hell you now enjoy:

"Look forward also to distant posterity. Figure to yourselves millions and millions to spring from your loins, who may be born freemen or slaves, as Heaven shall now approve or reject your councils. Think, that on you it may depend, whether this great country, in ages hence, shall be filled and adorned with a virtuous and inlightened people, enjoying Liberty and all its comcomitant blessings, together with the Religion of Jesus, as it flows uncorrupted from his holy oracles; or covered with a race of men more contemptible than the savages that roam the wilderness." Rev. Provost Smith, in a sermon given in 1775.
"It is not our duty to leave wealth to our children; but it is our duty to leave [Christian] liberty to them. No infamy, iniquity, or cruelty, can exceed our own, if we, born and educated in a country of freedom, entitled to its blessings, and knowing their value, pusillanimously deserting the post assigned us by Divine Providence, surrender succeeding generations to a condition of wretchedness, from which no human efforts, in all probability, will be sufficient to extricate them." Principles and Acts of the Revolution (1822), H. Niles, editor.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly on you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Sam Adams.

May God richly Bless you according to your faith in our Sovereign Lord and Saviour, Jesus, the Christ, amen.

Endnotes

{1} "Ruse de guerre--a strategem of war." Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (1927), "Foreign Words and Phrases," p. 1204; Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969), "Dictionary of Foreign Words and rasPhes," p. 83.

"RUSE DE GUERRE. Fr. A trick in war; a stratagem." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed.), p. 1499.

"STRATAGEM. A deception either by words or actions, in times of war, in order to obtain an advantage over an enemy." Black's Law Dict. (4th ed., 1968), p. 1590.

{2} "Every system of law known to civilized society generated from or had as its component one of three well known systems of ethics, Pagan, stoic, or Christian. The common law draws its subsistence from the latter, its roots go deep into that system, the Christian concept of right and wrong or right and justice motivates every rule of equity. It is the guide by which we dissolve domestic frictions and the rule by which all legal controversies are settled." Strauss v. Strauss (1941), 3 So.2d 727, 728.

"And so it has been the uniform doctrine in America ever since the settlement of the colonies. The universal principle (and the practice has conformed to it) has been, that the common law is our birthright and inheritance, and that our ancestors brought hither with them, upon the emigration, all of it which was applicable to their situation. The whole structure of our present jurisprudence stands upon the original foundations of the common law." Story, Commentaries on the Constitution (1833), Vol. I, 157.

{3} "'Jurisdiction' is the power to decide a case on its merits, whereas 'venue' relates to the place where the suit may be heard." Toulmin v. James Mfg. Co., D.C.N.Y., 27 F.Supp. 512, 515.

"Distinction between 'jurisdiction' and 'venue' is that 'jurisdiction' imports power of court, 'venue' the place of action." Shaffer v. Bank, 160 S.E. 481, 482, 201 N.C. 415.

"'Venue' signifies the geographical division where a cause shall be tried and depends on constitutional and statutory provisions [which map out those distinctions]." Loftus v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 140 N.E. 94, 96, 107 Ohio St. 352.

"'Venue' involves a privilege which may be lost by failure to assert it seasonably by formal submission in a cause, or by submission through conduct." Harvey v. U.S., D.C. Ill., 86 F.Supp. 609, 616. It is here that you fail when you do not timely object to the venue of the cause through abatement.

{4} "Qualibet jurisdictio cancellos suos habet--Every jurisdiction has its bounds." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2156.

"Legislative authority of a state must be exercised within the territorial limits of the state and it has no extra-territorial jurisdiction." Redding v. Tinkum (1882), 9 P.C.L.J. 592.

"By the word State (spelled with a capital) is meant one of the States of the American Union. Spelled otherwise, it refers to political societies or states in general." Robinson's Elementary Law (1882), note, p. xxxiv.

"In the sense of the constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government, the term 'state' is used to express the idea of a people or political community, as distinguished from the government; Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "State," p. 3124.

{5} "Assessors have no authority to enter upon the assessment roll the name of any person whose property is by law exempt from taxation; nor to impose an assessment thereon. They have no jurisdiction whatever over such persons, or their property. Nor can they acquire any by any act, or decision, of their own." Prosser v. Secor (1849), 5 Barb.(N.Y.) 607.

"The assessment of property is a judicial act, upon which a certiorari will lie. But to make an assessment legal, the assessors must have jurisdiction of the particular case. If they transcend the limits of their authority, and undertake to assess property exempt by statute, they cease to be judges, and are responsible for all the consequences." Prosser v. Secor (1849), 5 Barb.(N.Y.) 607, 608.

{6} "A slave and all his earnings belong to his master or owner, and he could not, therefore, make contracts which were obligatory upon himself or the person contracted with." Bedford, Trustee v. Williams, Adm'r, (1867), 5 Coldw.(Tenn.) 202. [See also University v. Cambreling, 6 Yer.(Tenn.) 84; Fletcher v. The State, 6 Hum.(Tenn.) 256; Jenkins v. Brown, 6 Hum.(Tenn.) 299; Hite v. The State, 9 Yer.(Tenn.), 207.] [Christians are slaves or bondservants of Jesus Christ, and therefore are bound by the same law.]

{7} "Forma legalis forma essentialis--Legal form is essential form." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1859), "Maxim," vol. 2, p. 129.

"Forma non observata, infertur adnullatio actus--When form is not observed a nullity of the act is inferred." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1859), vol. 2, p. 129.1.

"The earth [is] the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods." Ps 24:1-2.

"Non dat qui non habet--He gives nothing who has nothing." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2149.

"Qui non habet potestatem aliendandi habet incessitatem retinendi--He who has not the power of alienating is obliged to retain." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2157.

"Actus repugnans non potest in esse produci--A repugnant act cannot be brought into being (i.e., cannot be made effectual)." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2124.

{8} "They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." Mt 22:21. See also Mk 12:17 and Lk 20:25.

"A Right varies with a variation in any one of the series of its constituent elements. The possible variations in the two extreme terms of the series are, however, far fewer than in the two intermediate terms. This is the case, first, because both of the extreme terms are Persons, so that they are subject to the same sets of variations; and secondly, because as a matter of fact the possible varieties in juristic personality are far fewer than those in the juristic character of objects or acts.

"The Law of Persons, as a source of variety in rights, is therefore distinct from and much smaller than the residue of the Law, which is generally called the Law of Things. The jurist may make either one or the other species of characteristics his starting-point in considering the aggregate of rights which make up the whole field of Law. He may consider seriatim the possible varieties in the persons with whom rights may be connected; [*140] treating under each personality of the various objects and acts with which it may be combined: or, he may start from the variations in the objects and acts; considering by way of supplement the modifications which the rights connected with these undergo in each case from varieties in personality. Thus the aggregate of rights may be likened to a figure of two dimensions: the shorter of these dimensions representing the Law of Persons; the longer the Law of Things. And the figure may be supposed to be marked off into squares, like a chessboard, by the intersection of a few horizontal lines expressing the possible varieties of personality, and of a multitude of vertical lines expressing the possible varieties of object or act." Holland, Jurisprudence, pp. 139-140.

"Although it has been vigorously asserted that the rights specified in the Amends. 1 to 8 are among the privileges and immunities protected by this clause, and although this view has been defended by many distinguished jurists, including several justices of the federal Supreme Court, that court holds otherwise and asserts that it is the character of the right claimed, whether specified as above or not, that is controlling." State v. Felch (1918), 105 A. 23, 92 Vt. 477. [Emphasis added.]

{9} "PAPER TITLE. A title evidenced by conveyances or similar documents which, however, confer no substantial right, either because the property has become worthless or because a paramount title exists which could oust any claim under these conveyances." Radin, Law Dictionary (1955), p. 237. [See also "Color of Title."]

"PAPER TITLE. A title to land evidenced by a conveyance or chain of conveyances; the term generally implying that such title, while it has color or plausibility, is without substantial validity." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 1657. [Emphasis added.] Thus, the paper is not title, but is a prima facie rebuttable presumption of title.

{10} "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers." Jn 10:1-5.

{12} "IN THE FIELD. Any place on land or water, apart from permanent cantonments or fortifications where military operations are being conducted. Hines v. Mikell, C.C.A., 259 F. 28, 30." Black's Law Dictionary (4th Ed., 1968), p. 902. [Emphasis added. See also the attributes of the Roman gods Mercurius and Mars. This describes all "peace officers" and mail carriers.]

{13} "Moreover, the sole [*45] invariable characteristic of the State is the economic exploitation of one class by another. In this sense, every State known to history is a class-State. Oppenheimer defines the State, in respect of its origin, as an institution 'forced on a defeated group by a conquering group, with a view only to systematizing the domination of the conquered by the conquerors, and safeguarding itself against insurrection from within and attack from without. This domination had no other final purpose than the economic exploitation of the conquered group by the victorious group." Albert Jay Nock, Our Enemy, the State, pp. 44-45 citing Oppenheimer's treatise Der Staat, ch. I and his Theorie der Reinen und Politischen Oekonomie. [Emphasis added.]

{14} "CIVIL AFFAIRS. The activities of a commander that establish, maintain, influence, or exploit relations between military forces and civil authorities, both governmental and non-governmental, and the civilian populace in a friendly, neutral, or hostile area of operations in order to facilitate military operations and consolidate operational objectives. Civil affairs may include performance by military forces of activities and functions normally the responsibility of local government. These activities may occur prior to, during, or subsequent to other military actions. They may also occur, if directed, in the absence of other military operations." Dictionary of Military Terms (DoD pub. 1-02, Greenhill Publishing, 1995), p. 73. [Emphasis added.]

{15} "Spencer does not discuss what he calls 'the perennial faith of mankind' in State action, but contents himself with elaborating the sententious observation of Guizot, that 'a belief in the sovereign power of political machinery' is nothing less than 'a gross delusion.' This faith is chiefly an effect of the immense prestige [*57] which the State has diligently built up for itself in the century or more since the doctrine of jure divino [divine right] rulership gave way. We need not consider the various instruments that the State employs in building up its prestige; most of them are well known, and their uses well understood. There is one, however, which is in a sense peculiar to the republican State. Republicanism permits the individual to persuade himself that the State is his creation, that State action is his action, that when it expresses itself it expresses him, and when it is glorified he is glorified. The republican State encourages this persuasion with all its power, aware that it is the most efficient instrument for enhancing its own prestige. Lincoln's phrase, 'of the people, by the people, and for the people' was probably the most effective single stroke of propaganda ever made in behalf of republican State prestige." Albert Jay Nock, Our Enemy, the State (1935), pp. 56-57.

{16} See for example, 1 Tim 1:18-19; 2 Tim 2:3; Eph 6:10-18; 1 Chr 12:33.

{17} "Testament is an appointment of some person [a Good and Lawful Christian], whom we call an executor, to administer them for him after his death. For without naming executors, or [*168] if they all refuse it, it is no will at all;therefore executors represent the person of the testator." Finch, Law or a Discourse Thereof (1767), pp. 167-168.

"Duties of the testator [our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ] grwoing by record [the Scriptures] must be answered by executors before other duties." Finch, Law or a Discourse Thereof (1767), p. 233.

{18} "They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace [of the LORD]." Jer 6:14. See also Jer 8:11.

{19} "MILITARY NECESSITY. The principle whereby a belligerent has the right to apply any measures which are required to bring about the successful conclusion of a military operation and which are not forbidden by the laws of war." Dictionary of Military Terms (DoD pub. 1-02, Greenhill Publishing, 1995), p. 241. [Emphasis added.]

"Martial law is the law of military necessity in the actual presence of war. It is administered by the general of the army, and is in fact his will." Chief Justice Waite, in United States v. Diekelman, 98 U.S. 520.

"The term `martial law' carries no precise meaning and has been employed in various ways by different people and at different times." Duncan v. Kahanamoku, Hawaii, 66 S.Ct. 606, 611, 615, 327 U.S. 304, 90 L.Ed. 688.

{20} See House Report No. 262, March 26, 1874.

{21} "MILITARY OCCUPATION. A condition in which territory is under the effective control of a foreign armed force. See also OCCUPIED TERRITORY; PHASES OF MILITARY GOVERNMENT." Dictionary of Military Terms (DoD pub. 1-02, Greenhill Publishing, 1995), p. 241.

{22} See 12 Stat. 665 (1863), 13 Stat. 99 (1864), and Fite, Social and Industrial Conditions in the North during the Civil War (Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1963), pp. 105-154.

{23} See Torcaso v. Watkins (1962), 387 U.S. 486. It is the separation of Christ's church from the State which begins the downward spiral of whole classes of civilizations, because of the tolerance for other God-less anti-Christian beliefs. This brings in the necessity of the military power to protect the pagan from the Christian, and vice versa. But since the military is never neutral, and it derives its revenue from anti-Christian sources, how do you think Christians will fare?

{24} "PHASES OF MILITARY GOVERNMENT. 1. assault--That period which commences with first contact with civilians ashore and extends to the establishment of military government control ashore by the landing force. 2. consolidation--That period which commences with the establishment of military government control ashore by the landing force and extends to the establishment of control by occupation forces. 3. occupation--That period which commences when an area has been occupied in fact, and [*289] the military commander within that area is in a position to enforce public safety and order. See also CIVIL AFFAIRS; MILITARY OCCUPATION." Dictionary of Military Terms (DoD pub. 1-02, Greenhill Publishing, 1995), pp. 288-289.

{25} "A foreign power may bring an action in our courts, not as a matter of right, but of comity, which does not exist until such government is recognized by the United States." Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic v. Cibrario,

139 N.E. 259, 235 N.Y. 255, affirming judgment 193 N.Y. 952, 201 App.Div. 888, and reargument denied 142 N.E. 296, 236 N.Y. 591.

"The Russian Soviet Republic, which the United States refuses to recognize, cannot sue in our courts, even if comity did not depend on recognition, in view of the reasons given by the State Department for refusing to recognize it." Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic v. Cibrario, 139 N.E. 259, 235 N.Y. 255, affirming judgment 193 N.Y. 952, 201 App.Div. 888, and reargument denied 142 N.E. 296, 236 N.Y. 591.

"Lack of recognition does not permit individual suitor to bring de facto government before the bar." Nankivel v. Omsk All-Russian Government, 142 N.E. 569, 237 N.Y. 150, reversing order 197 N.Y.S. 467, 203 App.Div. 740.

{26} "IMPOSE. 1. To place (a burden, tax, etc. on or upon); to inflict; force; as, the king imposed a tax on the people. 2. To force (oneself, one's presence, etc.) On another or others without right or invitation; to obtrude. [Emphasis added.] 3. To pass off; to palm off; to foist, especially by deception [Emphasis added]; as, he imposed his doctrines upon a confused nation." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dict., Unabridged (1969), p. 915.

{27} "2. MILITARY JURISDICION-- Exercise. Military jurisdiction is exercised by a belligerent occupying an enemy's territory (military government); by a government temporarily governing the civil population of a locality through its military forces, without the authority of written law, as necessity may require (martial law); and by a government in the execution of that branch of the municipal law which regulates its military establishment (military law).

"The agencies through which military jurisdiction is exercised include:

"Military Commissions and Provost Courts for the trial within their respective jurisdictions. These tribunals are summary in their nature, but so far as not otherwise provided have usually been guided by the applicable rules of procedure and of evidence prescribed for courts-martial;..." Manual for Courts-Martial(1928), p. 1.

{28} "SUMMARY PROCEEDING. A form of trial in which the ancient established courses of legal proceedings are disregarded, especially in the matter of trial by jury" Jones v. Robbins from 8 Gray (Mass.) 329.

{29} "No military or civil officer can command an inferior to violate the laws of his country; nor will such a command excuse, much less justify, the act." Bushrod Washington, U.S. v. Jones, 3 Wash.C.C. 209.

{30} "The belligerent occupant of a country has right to make regulations for protection of occupant's military interests and the exercise of police powers, with correlative duty of maintaining public order and providing for preservation of rights of inhabitants of territory occupied. Hague Regulations, art. 1, 42-56, 43, 36 Stat. 2295." Aboitiz & Co. v. Price (1951), 99 F.Supp. 602, 610.

"In order for decrees and regulations of a belligerent occupant of another country's territory to be recognized as valid, such decrees and regulations must not be of a political complexion, but must be in the interest of the welfare of inhabitants of area occupied." Aboitiz & Co. v. Price (1951), 99 F.Supp. 602, 612-613.

{31} "When a 'law is suspended,' the law continues in esse, for the time being is not operative, but as soon as the power of suspension is relaxed it goes into immediate operation. Arroyo v. State, Tex., 69 S.W. 503, 505." Words and Phrases, vol. 24A, Permanent Edition, p. 98.

"Testament is an appointment of some person [a Good and Lawful Christian], whom we call an executor, to administer them for him after his death. For without naming executors, or [*168] if they all refuse it, it is no will at all;therefore executors represent the person of the testator." Finch, Law or a Discourse Thereof (1759), pp. 167-168. This has enormous political implications: Which testament deserves unconditional execution: The Truth, or a lie?

{32} "Nom de guerre--a war name; a pseudonym." Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (1927), "Foreign Words and Phrases," p. 1202.

"PSEUDONYM, n. [Fr. pseudonyme, from Gr. pseudes, and onyma, name.] A borrowed or fictitious name, especially one adopted by an author; a pen name." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969), p. 1453. [Emphasis added.].

{33} "MISNOMER.--I. Nouns. misnomer, misnaming; lucus a non lucendo (L.); malapropism, Mrs. Malaprop.

"nickname, sobriquet (F.), or soubriquet, by-name, pet name, assumed name, pseudonym, alias, nom de guerre (F.), nom de plume (English formation), pen name, stage name, nom de theatre (F.).

"II. Verbs. misname, miscall, misterm, nickname, take an assumed name.

"III. Adjectives. misnamed, miscalled, nicknamed; soi-disant (F.), self-styled, pseudonymous, so-called, quasi.

"nameless, anonymous (abbr. Anon.), innominate, unnamed, unknown, unacknowledged; pseudo.

"Antonyms. See NOMENCLATURE." Roget's Thesaurus of the English Language in Dictionary Form (1936), p. 310. [A nom de guerre, a war name, is a misnomer in Law.]

"MISNOMER. Mistake in name; giving incorrect name to person in accusation, indictment, pleading, deed or other instrument. Culpepper v. State, 173 Ga. 799, 161 S.E. 623." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 1151.

{34} "An alien enemy cannot maintain an action during the war in his own name." Wharton (1853) Pa. Digest Chap. 20, sec.94. cited in The Oxford English Dictionary, 1989.

BOND. That which binds; any instrument in writing that legally bnids a party to do a certain thing. "Bond," "obligation," and "instrument in writing" are sometimes used as convertible terms.

Bondsman. One who by a sealed instrument [see above] engages that if another person (the principal [--the "United States") fails to do a specified thing [pay interest] he will pay a certain sum of money [taxes.] [All U.S. citizens are bondsmen.]

Public Bond. The obligation of a nation, State [commercial], or public corporation, to pay money at or within a specified time; municipal, State, or government bonds.

Holders of government bonds must be presumed to have knowledge of the laws by authority of which they were created and put into circulation, and of all lawful acts done by government officers under these laws. The obligations of the [Lincoln's] United States under the five-twenty bonds [seven-thirty and ten-forty bonds], consols of 1865, are governed by the law merchant regulating negotiable securities, modified only, if at all, by the laws authorizing their issue." Anderson's Dictionary of Law (1893), pp. 128-129. [Emphasis and insertions added where appropriate.]

To drive this point of the importance of bonds, the following should suffice:

"The positive testimony of history is that the State invariably had its origin in conquest and confiscation. No primitive State known to history originated in any other manner. [An excellent example of primitive practice, effected by modern technique, is furnished by the new State of Manchoukuo, and another bids fair to be furnished in consequence of the Italian State's operations in Ethiopia. On the negative side, it has been proved beyond peradventure that no primitive State could possibly have had any other origin. [The mathematics of this demonstration are extremely interesting. A resume of them is given in Oppenheimer's treatise Der Staat, ch. I, and they are worked out in full in his Theorie der Reinen und Politischen Oekonomie.] Moreover, the sole [*45] invariable characteristic of the State is the economic exploitation of one class by another. In this sense, every State known to history is a class-State. Oppenheimer defines the State, in respect of its origin, as an institution 'forced on a defeated group by a conquering group, with a view only to systematizing the domination of the conquered by the conquerors, and safeguarding itself against insurrection from within and attack from without. This domination had no other final purpose than the economic exploitation of the conquered group by the victorious group." Albert Jay Nock, Our Enemy, the State, pp. 44-45.

Remembering the Old Ways

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

written by Charles Goodrich in 1851

A Beautiful Argument

To a young infidel, who was scoffing at Christianity, because of the misconduct of its professors, the late Dr. Mason said:-- "Did you ever know an uproar to be made because an infidel went astray from the paths of morality?" The infidel admitted that he had not. "Then don't you see," said Dr. Mason, "that by expecting the professors of Christianity to be holy, you admit it to be a holy religion, and thus pay it the highest compliment in your power?" -- The young man was silent.

Our Blessings more than our Crosses

Consider that our good days are generally more in number than our evil days, our days of prosperity than our days of adversity. This is most certain, though most of us are apt to cast our accounts otherwise. How many days of health we enjoy for one day of grievous sickness! How many days of ease, for one of pain! How many blessings, for a few crosses! For one danger that surprised us, how many scores of dangers have we escaped, and some of them very narrowly? But, alas! we write our mercies in the dust, but our afflictions we engrave in marble; our memory serves us too well to remember the latter, but we are strangely forgetful of the former. And this is the greatest cause of our unthankfulness, discontent, and mourning.

Issue the Nineteenth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Exercising Your 'Right of Avoidance', Part One...

Admissions and Confessions, Part seven...

Where is the Authority? you ask, Part Two...

Book Review, 'Crimes of the Civil War'...

Law and Metaphysics...

Christian Courts, Their Nature and Attributes, Part One ...

The Internet: Commercial Trap of The Twenty-First Century?

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Exercising Your 'Right Of Avoidance.'

Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men. Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away. For they sleep not, except they have done mischief; and their sleep is taken away, unless they cause some to fall. The way of the wicked is as darkness: they know not at what they stumble. Proverbs 4:14-18.

Matthew Henry said, in part, of these verses:

"Those that have been well educated, and trained up in the way they should go, let them never turn aside into the way they should not go; let them not so much as enter into it, no, not to make trial of it, lest it prove a dangerous experiment and difficult to retreat with safety. 'Venture not into the company of those that are infected with the plague, no, not though thou think thyself guarded with an antidote.'"
"The reasons to enforce this caution:
1. 'Consider the character of the men whose way thou art warned to shun.' They are mischievous men (v. 16, 17); they not only care not what hurt they do to those that stand in their way, but it is there business to do mischief, and their delight, purely for mischief-sake. They are continually designing and endeavouring to cause some to fall, to ruin them body and soul."
"The way of sin is as darkness, v.19. The works he had cautioned us not to have fellowship with are works of darkness. What true pleasure and satisfaction can those have who know no pleasure and satisfaction but what they have in doing mischief? What sure guide have those that cast God's Word behind them? The way of the wicked is dark, and therefore dangerous; for they stumble and know not at what they stumble. They fall into sin, but are not aware which way the temptation came by which they were overthrown, and therefore know not how to avoid it the next time. They fall into trouble, but never enquire wherefore God contends with them; they consider not that they do evil, nor what will be in the end of it, Ps. 82:5; Job 18:5, 6. This is the way we are directed to shun." Matthew Henry's Commentary On the Whole Bible, (1706) Vol. 3, pp.666 and 667.

Avoiding the Judicial System

These verses apply directly to the current judicial system in America. A judicial system that takes pride in saying that "we have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religion." McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 US 203. In other words, a secular faith in which 'we have cast God's Word behind us.'

Those that enter the current commercial/ military 'judicial system' should take heed of Matthew Henry's warning, 'Venture not into the company of those that are infected with the plague, no, not though thou think thyself guarded with an antidote.'

"Malum hominum est obviandum --The malicious plans of men must be avoided." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2144.

Avoiding Debt

Judge Henry Clay Dean wrote in 1868:

"This fearful finale of paper money in France, is the legitimate result of her profligacy. The American Congress has been the exact reflex of the constituent assembly. The gold bill, the legal tender bill, the gold-bearing bond, was the reproduction of French folly and crime, with this one difference:
"That the French fanaticism, somewhat seasoned with justice, aimed their blows at despotism; the American fanaticism, directed by reckless dishonesty, struck at republican government, and destroyed its Constitution. The French repudiated the assignats, with the crimes which brought them into being; the Americans are building the funding system upon a depreciated currency, to fasten slavery upon the industry of the country, to transmit to our children that which was before but a temporary evil, to be avoided and eschewed.
"Debt is the measure of our personal liberty. Only the Russian aristocracy could enforce the Russian debt. It requires the whole force of the monarch, aristocracy, and monopoly of Great Britain, who own the labor and production of the country in advance of their creation, to make the British debt available for oppression. In America, the question is exceedingly simple, the repudiation of this debt, or the abandonment of the republican system of government.
"The military despotism in the South, is the first step in advancing crime to overthrow liberty. A necessary plan to carry out the funding system, to collect such a debt, and prepare the people of the North to submit to military espionage and posse as the accompaniment of their revenue system.
"The Congress has reduced the American people to a choice among three methods of extrication [to be enforced by the military, if necessary]:
"The first, the British funding system fastened upon us.
"The second, the French paper system of paying with greenbacks, and the hypothecation of the greenbacks, for the public lands [national parks], so as to leave no public debt.
"The third is outright repudiation. The first must be destroyed at all hazards. The second may be done or pave the way for the third. The people must be free from the task-masters of capital."
"This insanity which pervades society, in regard to the public debt, is precisely that which seizes every insolvent debtor. Ambitious to be rich, and careful to conceal his misfortune, he resorts to every possible scheme, and embraces every subterfuge which offers relief; but with that fatuity which involved him, he will pursue his shadows until they disappear in the setting sun of his gloomy life. Governments are multitudes of men who have combined their powers, and wealth, and folly, and insanity,--different from individuals only in their magnitude.
"The great financial calamity of the United States is, that we are in debt, without adequate means of payment. Every other obstacle, in the way of our progress, power, and glory, is magnified by this cardinal evil.
"Every subterfuge of speculation, every refuge of lies, has been exhausted to make our poverty seem wealth, and our blanched cheek of shame wear the face of honor. The last miserable shift of these commercial simpletons, is to pay the debt by a constitutional amendment [Fourteenth Amendment derived from The Civil Rights Acts]; then to secure the payment, more completely, by passing laws, from time to time [Income Tax Acts], that the public debt never shall be repudiated.
"There is nothing more ridiculous than an attempt to enact laws which may never be repealed. Such attempts always cast a just suspicion upon the law itself, which claims immunity from examination. Such laws inevitably lead to oppression, which will seek freedom in revolution. A government that enforces only such laws as may serve the purpose of tyrants, and obviates such as are necessary to preserve liberty, is unspeakably worse than simple arbitrary power, and command no more respect than that which is extorted by force [see Romans 13:1]. Of this character, are all laws which repudiate one class of debts outright, and make obligatory forever another class, based upon the same general principles, when the justice and obligation of each are in the nature of things subject to the judgment of each successive generation.
"Forever, at the most moderate calculation, is a long time hence, and must see many changes in its checquered course. Wise men are content to legislate for to-day, whilst the prudent as wisely care for the morrow. God alone is the lawgiver of eternity. Judge Henry Clay Dean, Crimes of the Civil War (1868), pp. 428-432.

Avoiding Fraud

"A writing is void 'ab initio' in the case of fraud in the inception, and it need not be formally rescinded as a prerequisite to a right of avoidance." Bonnacci v. Massachusetts Bonding and Insurance Co. (1943), 56 C.A.2d 657, 664, 137 P.2d 487.

Avoiding Evil

"Now the true Church by the power it hath received from Christ can gather itself together when, and as often as it pleaseth. The company of believers have power to gather themselves together for their mutual good, instruction, preservation, edification, and for the avoiding or preventing of evil, and that without the consent or authority of any extrinsical and foreign power whatever; else Christ were not a sufficient founder of His Church. And if every free society, not subjected to tyranny, hath power in itself to congregate and come together as conveniency and necessity shall require, as is evident in all civil corporations, and in all fraternities and meetings of love; much more hath the Church of Christ, which is the freest society in the world, power to meet together into a communion of Saints, though it be without and against the consent and authority of the powers of the world. William Dell, The Way of True Peace and Unity (1649), from Puritanism and Liberty (1965) p. 309.

In Part Two next month, we will examine ways of 'Exercising Your Right of Avoidance' when confronted by the current imperial power agents and Courts of The District of Chaldea, as well as those of The State of, The County of and The City of. See Page Etymologicum Anglicanum in this Issue for the comparison of 'Avoid,' 'Eschew,' 'Shun,' and 'Elude.'

The Bankruptcy of A. Lincoln's United States

Part Seven:

written and compiled by John Joseph

(continued from Issue the Eighteenth)

By joining the debt ridden system of sin, you are merged and incorporated into the body of the bankrupt person, where there is no law but the law unto death. For there is only one body--and that body is a lifeless body, joined forever to the condemnation that awaits it. For those who do have no belief in Christ, there is only bondage unto death.

Law itself is a gift, for God gave the Law first in Creation, then to Moses. For the Christian, it is impossible for the bankrupt debtor person to give him any law because: One, Christ is the fulfillment of the Law; Two, the Christian has the Law written on his heart; Three, the Christian is Sealed by the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption; and Four, a debtor is not presumed to make a gift. In Christ there is no law of bondage to sin, but a Righteous Bondage to everlasting Life. When you came to Christ, you left the bondage of death behind. This brings to mind the exchange Christ had with the Pharisees in discussing the great gulf between Himself and them, that gulf being a distinction in status:

"BANKRUPTCY. The term 'bankruptcy' means the status of a person [corporation, partnership, trust, or natural person],who has been made the subject of the application of a bankrupt or bankruptcy law [Black's L.D.; Bouvier's L.D.; Cyclopedic L. D.; Rapalje & L.L.D. See also Sackett v. Andross, 5 Hill 327, 339, 348, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 11.], and also, in a secondary sense, refers to the system of law [Christian Law, in this case] under which such status is established. [Black L.D. See also Anderson L.D.]" 7 C.J. 17, 2. [Emphasis added. Remember, Law establishes the world or venue. See Gen 1:1.]
"And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath [condemned]; I am from above: ye are of this world [bankruptcy]; I am not of this world [bankruptcy]." Jn 8:23. [Question of venue and status.]
"Bankruptcy," then, has a specific meaning: it is the status of a debtor person under the existing Law establishing that status. This makes the bankrupt debtor a subject of the superior Law, which exists in the sides of the north--"Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised in the city of our God, in the mountain of his holiness. Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great King. God is known in her palaces for a refuge." Ps 48:1-3. [The north pole is considered the top of the world and its uppermost point.] The maxims state the following in respect to debtors and their status the two most important being: "Debita sequuntur personam debitoris--Debts follow the person of the debtor." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 2131; and, "Debitor non praesumitur donare--A debtor is not presumed to make a gift." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2131. Great is the gulf then between the Good and Lawful Christian and the bankrupt. According to God's Law, the Lawless firm of Lincoln, Lieber, and Company are bankrupt, and have the inferior status.

This condition of bankruptcy, not just of Lincoln's United States, but also of the States, is what allows the military, in various disguises, to roam freely among the Good and Lawful Christians in their states. They manage "civil affairs," collect revenues from the "low and lawless" for the bondholders holding the bankruptcy, maintain the condition of "peace," until Good and Lawful Christians re-establish their governments and once again rule in the manner entrusted to them by God through Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ:

"FIELD ARMY. Administrative and tactical organization composed of a headquarters, certain organic Army troops, service support troops, a variable number of corps, and a variable number of divisions." Dictionary of Military Terms (DoD pub. 1-02, Greenhill Publishing, 1995), p. 148.
"CIVIL AFFAIRS. The activities of a commander that establish, maintain, influence, or exploit relations between military forces and civil authorities, both governmental and non-governmental, and the civilian populace in a friendly, neutral, or hostile area of operations in order to facilitate military operations and consolidate operational objectives. Civil affairs may include performance by military forces of activities and functions normally the responsibility of local government. These activities may occur prior to, during, or subsequent to other military actions. They may also occur, if directed, in the absence of other military operations." Dictionary of Military Terms (DoD pub. 1-02, Greenhill Publishing, 1995), p. 73. [Emphasis added.]
"The adoption of the first eleven amendments to the Constitution so soon after the original instrument was accepted, shows a prevailing sense of danger at that time from the Federal power. And it cannot be denied that such a jealousy continued to exist with many patriotic men until the breakout of the late civil war [A. Lincoln v. All Christian states]. It was then discovered that the true danger to the perpetuity of the Union was in the capacity of the State organizations to combine and concentrate all the powers of the State, and of contiguous States, for a determined resistance to the General Government. [Ed. Note: This was the ultimate check against the encroachment of the national government into the states, and the true reason for the War in the first place.]
"Unquestionably this has given great force to the argument, and added largely to the number of those who believe in the necessity of a strong National government." Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), 16 Wall. 36, 82. [Emphasis added. The concept of union at any cost, not limited to bankruptcy, became the new religion. A huge and unmistakable reversal in the flow of law.]
"War was continued in those States until the President's [Johnson] proclamation of August 20, 1866, proclaimed 'the insurrection at an end.' A 'state of war' continued beyond this time, more or less extensive in its theater--'non flagrange bello sed nondum cessante bello.' [Mrs. Alexander's Cotton, 2 Wall. 419.]
"The existence of what is called 'a state of war' after flagrant war has ceased is recognized on the same principle as the personal right of self-defense. This is not limited to the right to repel an attack; but so long as the purpose of renewing it remains [abating the treacherous policy of Lincoln's proclamations, civil rights acts, and the phony amendments]--the animus revertendi--so long as the danger is imminent or probable, the party assailed [the bondholder or his debtor] may employ reasonable force against his adversary to disarm and disable him until the danger is past, and in doing this and judging of its necessity precise accuracy as to the means is not required, but only the exercise of reasonable judgment in view of the circumstances. [1 Bish.Crim.Law, (5th ed.) secs. 301, 305, 838, and numerous authorities cited. See Stewart v. State, 1 Ohio St.Rep. 66-71.]
"If after the forces under the command of Lee surrendered in April, 1865, the United States forces had been immediately withdrawn, the rebellion would possibly have resumed its hostile purposes.
"It was upon this theory, coupled with the constitutional duty of Con- [*4] gress to 'guarantee to each State a republican form of government,' that the reconstruction acts were passed, and military as well as civil measures adopted in pursuance of them." Report No. 262, House of Representatives, 43d Congress, 1st Session, March 26, 1874. [Emphasis and insertion added.]
"Martial law is the immediate and direct effect and consequence of occupation or conquest. The presence of a hostile army proclaims its martial law." Jefferies v. State, 39 Ala. 658, quoting General Orders No. 100, approved April 24, 1863. [General Orders No. 100 is the Lieber Code.]
"The military occupation of a country by a belligerent power or conqueror, does not, ipso facto, displace the municipal laws. The conqueror or belligerent occupier, may suspend or supersede, for the time being, the municipal laws, but in the absence of orders suspending or superseding them, they remain in full force." Wingfield v. Crosby (1867), 5 Coldw.(45 Tenn.) 241.
"The right of a military occupant to govern, implies the right to determine in what manner, and through what agency [of his own creation or one already existing], such government is to be conducted. The municipal laws of the place may be left in operation, or suspended, and others enforced. The administration of justice, may be left in the hands of the ordinary officers of the law [agency]; or these may be suspended, and others appointed in their place. Civil rights and civil remedies may be suspended, and military laws and courts and proceedings, may be substituted for them, or new legal remedies and civil proceedings, may be introduced." Hefferman v. Porter (1867), 6 Coldw.(46 Tenn.) 391. [Emphasis added.]
"The laws of war, as well in civil as in international war, authorize the occupying conqueror to organize and enforce government over the people of the enemy's country, subdued and held in firm occupation. The government so established, endures no longer than the belligerent and firm occupation continues, and ends with the restoration and resumption of the regular civil municipal government of peace." Isbell v. Farris (1868), 5 Coldw.(45 Tenn.) 426.

This is further evidenced in 12 Op.Atty-Gen. 182 (1867). In other words, the policy of the war is continued to promote commercial interests, welfare, and benefits protected by the military power to pay off these phony bloody bonds and is now "the law"--the Reconstruction Acts--called the "civil rights acts," "voting rights acts," ad nauseam, as amended. This is the same law as Rome, especially when it comes to "criminal" law:

"Roman criminal law, in contrast, especially in the earlier period but also at the time of Justinian, was not greatly concerned with the moral quality of the specific criminal act; it was concerned, rather, with what is called today the protection of interests and enforcement of policies.In the postclassical period, as imperial power increased, the kinds of misconduct to which imperial punishment was applicable also increased, as did the severity of criminal sanctions." Berman, Law and Revolution (1984), p. 192.
"[The] more corrupt the government, the greater the number of laws." Tacitus. [Bankruptcy brings and breeds corruption.]
"It isto be observed that the power exercised by the President in time of war is greatly augmented outside of his functions as Commander-in-Chief through legislation of Congress increasing his administrative authority. War demandsefficient organization, and Congress in the nature of things cannot prescribe many important details as it legislates for the purpose of meeting the exigencies of war. Never is adaptation of legislation to practical ends so urgently required, and hence Congress naturally in very large measure confers upon the President the authority to ascertain and determine various states of fact to which legislative measures are addressedWe thusfinda vast increase of administrative authority through legislative action springing from the necessities of war. [Charles E. Hughes, op. cit., p. 9.]" Randall, Constitutional Problems under Lincoln, pp. 37-39. [Emphasis added.]
"Obsta principiis, nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers, and destroyers press upon them so fast, that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon the American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour. The revenue creates pensioners, and the pensioners urge for more revenue. The people grow less steady, spirited, and virtuous, the seekers more numerous and more corrupt, and every day increases the circles of their dependents and expectants, until virtue, integrity, public spirit, simplicity, and frugality, become the objects of ridicule and scorn, and vanity, luxury, foppery, selfishness, meanness, and downright venality swallow up the whole society." John Adams, Works IV, p. 43. [Thus, the law unto death is unbelief that God is Sovereign by believing that man is independent of God and sovereign.]

Note these armies, wherever they are in the field, never did, and do not now, bring the Peace of Christ:

"For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness [commerce]; and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely [deceit]. They have healed also the hurt of my daughter of My people slightly, saying, Peace, peace: when there is no peace. Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them, they shall be cast down, saith the LORD." Jer 6:13-15. [Insertions added.]
"standing armies in time of peace are inconsistent with the principles of republican governments, dangerous to the liberties of a free people, and generally converted into destructive engines for establishing despotism." 27 Journal of the Continental Congress 433, 518-519.

The "law" used in all military proceedings conducting civil affairs is merely Roman imperial law, which is really no law at all:

"Law has another meaning, however, to administrative officials who exercise wide undifferentiated powers of rule making, application of rules, and determination of controversies. To them, law is whatever is done officially, and so administrative law is whatever is done by administrative agencies. What they do is law because they do it. Whereas we had understood that officials should act according to law, but might act without law or even against law, and the common law afforded remedies to those aggrieved by official action without or against law, yet today there are many who teach that the administrative official, as one recent writer put it, has the touch of Midas. What he touches becomes law when he touches it.
"Such ideas come to us chiefly from the modern Roman administrative regime of continental Europe. In the polity of the eastern Roman empire which was set forth in the law books of Justinian, the emperor was free from laws and his will had the force of a statute." Roscoe Pound, "Administra- tive Agencies and the Law", American Affairs Pamphlets, April 1946, p. 5.

See also McDaniel, "The Availability and Scope of Judicial Review of Discretionary Military Administrative Decisions," 108 M.L.R. 89. Further, this bankruptcy corrupts the judges on the Article One legislative court bench, but not just at the federal level, although this is the only admission I have found:

"More than once the judges of a[n Article I legislative] court have been indirectly reminded that they personally are taxpayers. No sophisticated person is unaware that even in this very Commonwealth the Internal Revenue Service has been in possession of facts with respect to public officials which it has presented or shelved in order to serve what can only be called political ends, be they high or low. And a judge who knows the score is aware that every time his decisions offend the Internal Revenue Service he is inviting a close inspection of his own returns. But I suppose that no one familiar with this Court believes that intimidation, direct or indirect, is effective." Lord v. Kelly (1965), 240 F.Supp. 167, 169. [Emphasis added. The judge in this case disqualified himself on these grounds. Cf. Collector v. Day, 11 Wall. 113, 124 in which it is ruled, "It is not competent for Congress, under the Constitution of the united States, to impose a tax upon the salary of a judicial officer of a state." But it is competent if that "judge" enjoys "civil rights."]
"Res est misera ubi jus est vagum et incertum--It is a wretched state of things when law is vague and mutable." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 1471.

And for these reasons, Christians are not subject to the bankruptcy or its arbitrary and capricious proceedings:

"Consuetudo debet esse certa--A custom ought to be certain." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 2129.
"Consuetudo debet esse certa, nam incerta pro nullius habetur--Custom ought to be fixed, for if variable it is held as of no account." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 2129.

All civilians sentenced by the military agents, are a:

"CIVILIAN INTERNEE. 1. A civilian who is interned during armed conflict or occupation for security reasons, or for protection or because he has an offense against the detaining power. 2. A term used to refer to persons interned and protected in accordance with the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949 (Geneva Convention). See also PRISONER OF WAR." Dictionary of Military Terms (DoD pub. 1-02, Greenhill Publishing, 1995), p. 74. [Emphasis added.]

You must remember that Good and Lawful Christians are not "civilians":

"CIVILIAN. One who is skilled or versed in the civil law. A doctor, professor, or student of the civillaw. Also a private citizen, as distinguished from such as belong to the army and navy or the church." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 313. [Emphasis added.]

And you are not a "prisoner of war" in the international sense. You are, however, none the less, an exchangeable asset on the balance sheet, if you claimed or stood on any "civil rights"--either pay the fine or sit in gaol. The twin pillars upon which the present system rest are "civil rights" and "paper debt." Knocking out one pillar, destroys the other, and the tower of Lincoln, the most debased and unbased, crumbles.

Which means that only Christians, through Repentance to Christ, can ever attain, have and hold Dominion under the Sovereign Lordship of Jesus Christ, and not be beholden to the bondholders of the bankruptcy of the United States:

"Although it has been vigorously asserted that the rights specified in the Amends. 1 to 8 are among the privileges and immunities protected by this clause, and although this view has been defended by many distinguished jurists, including several justices of the federal Supreme Court, that court holds otherwise and asserts that it is the character [whether Christian or lawless] of the right claimed [or exercised], whether specified as above or not, that is controlling." State v. Felch (1918), 105 A. 23, 92 Vt. 477. [Emphasis and insertion added.]
"The belligerent occupant of a country has right to make regulations for protection of occupant's military interests and the exercise of police powers, with correlative duty of maintaining public order and providing for preservation of rights of inhabitants of territory occupied. Hague Regulations, art. 1, 42-56, 43, 36 Stat. 2295." Aboitiz & Co. v. Price (1951), 99 F.Supp. 602, 610.
"In order for decrees and regulations of a belligerent occupant of another country's territory to be recognized as valid, such decrees and regulations must not be of a political complexion, but must be in the interest of the welfare of inhabitants of area occupied." Aboitiz & Co. v. Price (1951), 99 F.Supp. 602, 612-613. [Emphasis added.]

In Law, corporations, trusts, partnerships, and natural persons are not the equal of Good and Lawful Christians; they are "strangers" in the Law, because they are not privy to the covenant by and between Christians and their Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ:

"STRANGERS. By this term is intended third persons generally. Thus the persons bound by a fine are parties, privies, and strangers; the parties are either cognizors or cognizees; the privies are such as are in any way related to those who levy the fine, and claim under them by any right of blood, or other right of representation; the strangers are all other persons in the world, except only the parties and privies. In its general legal signification the term is opposed to the word 'privy.' Those who are in no way parties to a covenant, nor bound by it, are also said to be strangers to the covenant. Brown. See Robbins v. Chicago, 4 Wall. 672, 18 L.Ed. 427; Wilson v. Smith, 213 Ky. 836, 281 S.W. 1008, 1010; State v. Mills, 23 N.M. 549, 169 P. 1171, 1173; Gronewold v. Gronewold, 304 Ill. 11, 136 N.E. 489, 490. See, also, STRANGER." Black's Law Dict. (4th ed., 1968), p. 1590. [Emphasis added.]
"And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world." Jn 8:23.

And, in Law, the question of Christianity being recognized is a political question:

"The Christian religion is, of course, recognized by the government [a political act], yet not so as to draw invidious distinctions between different religious beliefs, etc.; Cooley, Const. 206." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Religion," p. 2865. [Insertion added.]
"The courts are not the guardians of the [Christian] rights of the people of the State, unless those rights are secured by some constitutional provision which comes within the judicial cognizance. The remedy for unwise or oppressive legislation, within constitutional bounds, is by an appeal to the justice and patriotism of the representatives of the people. If this fail, the people in their sovereign capacity can correct the evil; but the courts cannot assume their rights." Cooley's Constitutional Limitations (1868), p. 168, citing Perkins, J., in Madison & Indianapolis Railroad Co. v. Whiteneck, 8 Ind. 222.

See also Probasco v. Raine, Ohio Supreme Court, June 1893. The courts under the constitutions cannot assume the rights of the Good and Lawful Christians in the states, because those Rights are not under the constitutions, but exist outside them. See Hamilton v. St. Louis County Court, 15 Mo. 13 and Matter of Oliver Lee & Co.'s Bank, 21 N.Y. 9. The remedy lies with Good and Lawful Christians in erecting and establishing Lawful Civil government under God:

"Allegiance, as we understand that term, is due to no Government. It is due the power that can rightfully make or change Governments. This is what is meant by the Paramount authority, or Sovereignty. Allegiance and Paramount authority do go together; we agree in that. But there is a great difference between the supreme law of the land and the Paramount authority, in our system of government, as well as in all others. Obedience is due to the one, while allegiance is due to the other. Obedience to law, while it is law, or the Constitution, which is an organic law for the time being, and allegiance to the Paramount authority, which can set aside all existing laws, fundamental laws, Constitutions, as well as any others, are very different things." Alexander Stephens, Constitutional View of the War (1868), vol. I, p. 25.
"There is a wide differencebetween the supreme law of the land and the Paramount authority. Obedience is due to the one as long as it is the law, and allegiance is due to the other when it declares, as it can, that the law no longer exists. In our Government, as in all Governments, there must be a supreme law-making power on the subjects within its jurisdiction; that is, the supreme power of making laws to be obeyed on these subjects must be lodged somewhere. It is not an absolute power in any Government founded on the principles of ours. It is a power exercised in trust only. [For who can, could, or would determine the subjects upon which the Government could legislate?] This supreme power, moreover, or the delegation of its exercise, emanates from Sovereignty or Paramount authority, but it is not Sovereignty itself. All laws therefore passed in pursuance of the rules prescribed by the Sovereign or Paramount authority, are supreme, and to be obeyed as long as they remain of force by the continued authority of the Sovereign power [consent or assent]. This is universally admitted; no one disputes it. In this country, it is equally admitted on all hands that Sovereignty, which is the Paramount authority, resides with the [Christian] People. All government, according to our maxims, is but the exercise of in trust of delegated powers. The exercise of supreme or Sovereign powers may be by delegation. [But if delegated, the person to whom they are delegated is not sovereign in respect to the grantor of the power.] In this country [*40] it is entirely by delegation; but whatever is delegated may be resumed by the authority delegating. No postulate in mathematics can be assumed less subject to question than this. The exercise of supreme law-making power, even over the authority delegating it, may be legitimate so long as the delegated power is unresumed. Obedience to laws passed under such delegation of power, is, as I have said, a very different thing from allegiance which is due to the authority delegating the exercise of the supreme law-making power. Whenever the delegated powers are resumed, allegiance must be due to the resuming Sovereign power; to that which can rightfully make and unmake Constitutions." Alexander Stephens, A Constitutional View of the War (1868), vol. I, pp. 39-40. [Emphasis and insertions added.]
"Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his: And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding: He revealeth the deep and secret things: he knoweth what [is] in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him." Dan 2:20-22. [Emphasis added.]
"With him is strength and wisdom: the deceived and the deceiver are his. He leadeth counsellors away spoiled, and maketh the judges fools. He looseth the bond of kings, and girdeth their loins with a girdle. He leadeth princes away spoiled, and overthroweth the mighty.He poureth contempt upon princes, and weakeneth the strength of the mighty.He increaseth the nations, and destroyeth them: he enlargeth the nations, and straiteneth them again. He taketh away the heart of the chief of the people of the earth [secular governments] and causeth them to wander in a wilderness where there is no way. They grope in the dark without light, and he maketh them to stagger like a drunken man." Job 12:18-25.
"For promotion cometh neither from the east nor from the west, nor from the south. But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another." Ps 75:6-7.
"I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power and by my outstretched arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me." Jer 27:5.

To erect these governments and institute Christian civil government, Good and Lawful Christians can not and do not exercise any "civil rights" stemming from their creation by Lincoln in his proclamations, because they belong to the church of Christ and are not "civilians." Furthermore, being the bondservants of Christ, Christians have no power to contract with strangers of their Covenant with Almighty God Sealed and Evidenced by the Blood of Christ:

"The disciple is not above [his] master, nor the servant above his lord." Mt 10:24.
"A slave and all his earnings belong to his master or owner, and he could not, therefore, make contracts which were obligatory upon himself or the person contracted with." Bedford, Trustee v. Williams, Adm'r, (1867), 5 Coldw.(Tenn.) 202.

More 'Admissions and Confessions' next month.

Where is the Authority? you ask.

(continued from Issue the Sixteenth)

by Robert

Reprinted from Issue the Fourth of 'The Monmouth county Christian Jural Society News,' a monthly newsletter published by 'The Monmouth county Christian Jural Society, First House of Delegates,' in New Jersey.

Well!! Have you begun to understand, 'where is the Authority'? Are you reading Scripture for your edification? And if you are reading, are you listening? And if you are listening, are you following His Word in Scripture? If so, do you now know what is meant by, 'His Word'?

The understanding of the Word comes to us through the Spirit, the Holy Ghost. Does the Spirit dwell in you? for if you have not the same Spirit in you to understand Scripture as the Prophets and Apostles had in them to write Scripture, then there is no way true understanding can come to you, until that same Spirit is in you. Make sense! Did a light shine on the darkness?

Jesus himself teaches through the Holy Spirit, and He uses no hirelings, read John 10:13, 14: The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and know My sheep, and am known of Mine. And John 10:27: My sheep hear My voice and I know them, and they follow Me. And at Matthew 10:8, Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils, freely ye have received, freely give. What hireling gives freely. He that hath ears, let him hear.

Just in case you are not getting an understanding of what is meant by 'His Word,' read in Scripture at John 1:14: And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth. Is it beginning to come to your understanding? Let us look at John 10:30, where it is written, I and my Father are one. So the Authority you ask about comes from God through His Word, Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To help your understanding a little more, read in Scripture at John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

And further, here are verses in Scripture for you to read how much Authority that His Word has. Matthew 28:18-20 reads, And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Therefore Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, the Word that was made flesh, has all the power, and is the Authority, by Whom, and for Whom, We must live Our lives as Good and Lawful Christian Men and Women. If you say at this point, 'I have to sit down and think about that,' then before you sit down to start thinking, get your Holy Bible (KJV), then sit down and read Acts 4:12, which says, Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Now start thinking.

Book Review

'Crimes of the Civil War and Curse of the Funding System'

Written by Judge Henry Clay Dean

Printed for the Publisher W. T. Smithson by Innes & Co., Baltimore (1868)

Henry Clay Dean, a Northern Christian Judge, was one 'crying in the wilderness' in 1861. Those cries ended in arrest and incarceration under the lawless regime of Abraham Lincoln, all without trial or charges ever being brought before a military commission, court-martial, or a court at Law.

Judge Dean's dedication of his book reads:

"To the brave men, who, unmoved by the violence of party; unseduced by the temptations of wealth, and unawed by the cruelty of war, defended the priceless treasures of Constitutional Liberty; endured banishment, tortures, and death, rather than surrender their birthright, transmitted by the Fathers of 1776--
"To those upright soldiers, who, through five years of carnage, corruption, plunder, rapine, and desolation, preserved their hands unstained with innocent blood, their souls unpolluted with plunder, and maintained their manhood inviolate--
"To the laboring poor, whose subsistence is devoured by the combinations of Monopoly, Bankruptcy, Usury, Extortion, Standing Armies, Tax-gatherers and Usurpation--
"To the immortal dead, who surrendered their lives in defence of the honor and safety of their homes, and poured out their blood in rich libations to the God of Liberty--is this book dedicated by the author." The author.

On Reconstruction

"The Reconstruction Bill is the most monstrous crime of the Christian era. It is a crime against Christianity in this--that it transfers the government of a Christian people to the control of a degraded, imbecile race of heathens, who yet retain the idolatry and superstitions of the most revolting systems of heathen worship."

On War and Christianity

"To create wars on moral pretence is to overthrow the moral law, the source and the foundation of all laws, and Christianity, the standard by which every good must be measured. When the supreme law of the universe is made and unmade to gratify the whims and passions of the wicked, then we have nothing left on earth to preserve its peace."

Judge Henry Clay Dean's comments above show the Christian perspective in which this book was written through God's hand for Our edification.

This book was not written for those who currently have or maintain a short term perspective in terms of correcting the evils around you. This book was written for giving you the tools and information, from a Christian perspective, for your edification in re-claiming the inheritance for which Christ redeemed us, and which is currently being withheld from us due to our ignorance of Scripture, history, and Law.

We have quoted extensively from this book in past newsletters and in the Third Edition of 'The Book of the Hundreds,' as a major source of Lincoln's despotism and usurpations, and the 'New Nation' created thereby.

The Publisher's Preface of this fine work:

"'The Crimes of the Civil War and Curse of the Funding System,' which is now presented to the American people, is a most remarkable book. It is a plain rehearsal of thrilling incidents which have occurred in this country within the past few years; it is a record of some of the basest crimes ever inflicted upon man by his fellow; it graphically depicts many heart-rendering outrages perpetrated upon humanity, in the name of liberty, by the unbridled passions of a fanatical despotism; it is a faithful chronicle of passing events and contemplates the character of men as photographed by themselves in the sun-light of heaven -- it views things as they really exist -- fairly, honestly and openly; it withdraws the veil of mystery which conceals the hideous form of a ruined government and an oppressed people.
History is made to repeat itself, although upon a grander scale than the world ever before contemplated. Every page has been subjected to an unscrupulous inquisition; facts and figures are made to speak the untrammeled truth, and the entire testimony is unquestionable. The style is terse and the diction uncompromising, and every sentence is clothed in a strong lucid language which has the impress of the masterly hand and spirit of the distinguished author.
The work is gotten up in a plain, neat form, sufficiently cheap to be in reach of the general reader; typographical errors have been avoided as far as possible, and we trust it will find its way to the offices, shops and firesides of the great masses of the laboring and over-taxed people of the United States. It is the champion of truth and justice, and we send it forth on its mission, with full confidence in its power, to defend the right and maintain its principles." Wm..T. Smithson

On his arrest

"I have a personal reason for the publication of this book. I suffered under the reign of Mr. Lincoln, which was a vibration between anarchy and despotism. Why arrest? I cannot tell. Have never seen anything like charges, and suppose their were none in such form as would be recognized in any court of justice under the sun; and yet I am quite sure there was a cause for it, which is this: I am a Democrat; a devoted friend of the Constitution of the United States; a sincere lover of the Government and the Union of the States: am anxious for a reunion, and believe it the right and duty of a freeman, in a calm, candid manner, to discuss in a temperate spirit, the best modes of effecting this purpose. I have dared to participate in these discussions freely, which I have done from convictions of duty. This was the cause of my arrest."

On the income tax and tax-gatherer

"The tax-gatherer is a toll-dish upon the food, as a sponge-cloth upon the raiment of the laboring masses, to enrich the opulent. The income tax enslaves your productions; and, in the wealth of their mercenary ingenuity, all the means devised by the infinite resources of despotism and fraud, have failed to meet the growing demands of the fathomless debt, which will bind in chains the progressive industry of the unborn generation of our race."
"The Federal tax-gatherer, a trespasser upon liberty, was unknown to our forefathers. He is the chief personage of the funding system, who, at the cheapest wages, performs the most offensive service in the rudest manner. He is generally chosen for his want of feeling and insolence in the common walks of life. His wide range of discretionary plunder includes stamps, incomes, licenses, and excises."

On the National Debt

"The debt of the United States is slavery, which becomes more exacting as the debt increases in volume. This debt has all the attributes of national and personal slavery, and fixes itself alike on the realty and personality of the country. Salmon P. Chase (Lincoln's Secretary of the Treasury) did not hesitate to publish to the world through his factotum, Cooke, that the debt was a 'first mortgage' upon all of the property of the United States."

Miscellaneous Chapter Titles

Overthrow of The Constitution of the U. S.

The New Nation

Destruction of Self-Government

Disintegration of Congress

The character of Congress that robs us of liberty

Degradation of the Judiciary

Infidelity of the Clergy

The Sacred Debt

Usury

Curse of the Funding System

Bondholders and Bondmen

The Tax-Gatherer

Military Usurpers

The 512 page 'Crimes of the Civil War and Curse of the Funding System' is now available from the Christian Jural Society Press in re-copied book form. This rare book is available at 30.00 in cash or Postal Money Order, or $ 6.00 in pre-1964 silver coin. Call 818-347-7080.

Law and Metaphysics

We have called attention in the past to certain aspects of philosophy as they apply to the study of law and have mentioned in particular, the subject of epistemology, the doctrine on knowing and the basis of certainty and of its great importance in the study and implementation of law. Epistemology, however is but one of the four branches of of philosophy, the others being metaphysics, logic, and ethics. Of course, there is debate over whether ethics should not be considered as a separate discipline and whether or not rhetoric should be substituted for ethics as one of the branches of philosophy. This debate is not our concern here.

Instead, what we are concerned here with is the nature of metaphysics in general, and specifically the relationship of metaphysics to law. This relationship once occupied an important place in philosophy and once was a major concern in the philosophy of law. Today, the metaphysics of law is of no concern to any accept the academic types for the simple reason that most lawyers could care less about the metaphysics of law, and also because, from a humanistic stand-point, the metaphysics of law is a pointless pursuit since it can, in their opinion, yield no practical results for the lawyer, courts, or judges, to take notice of.

In general, metaphysics is the study of being, or in some sense, what is the basis for our existence. Is there an ultimate reality upon which our own being or existence rests or depends upon?

Thus, Black's defines metaphysics as:

'The science of being; the science which deals with ultimate reality.' Vineland Trust Co. v. Westendorf, 96 N.J.Eq. 343, 98 A. 214. Black's Law Dictionary, by Henry Campbell Black, Revised Fourth Edition, published by West Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota. 1968.

The Oxford Shorter Dictionary takes a very modern and very humanistic view of metaphysics which is purely subjective:

'The science or study of certain phenomena which are 'beyond the scheme of orthodox psychology.' The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Volume One, p. 1241. Published by Oxford at the Clarendon Press, reprinted 1953.

Corpus Juris tells us more:

METAPHYSICS. That division of philosophy which includes ontology, or the science of being, and epistemology or the theory of knowledge; in a looser sense, all the more abstruse philosophical disciplines; in a narrower sense, ontology alone.

This definition is cited by the editors of Corpus Juris as having come from the Webster's New International Dictionary. C.J. then cites the same case as Black's (supra) and encloses a quote as follows:

"The fund is to be used for the teaching of metaphysics - the science of being - the science which deals with mind; the science beyond experience; the realm of transcendental rumination and of speculation of the philosophers."

How something can be called a science and at the same time 'the realm of transcendental rumination and of speculation' is beyond me. But, to bring the idea of metaphysics a little more down to earth, we note above that metaphysics is a study which includes ontology. Some Christians know of the ontological argument for God's existence, or Proof for God's existence which is often used by Christian apologists. Briefly the argument is that 'the existence of the idea of God of necessity involves the objective existence of God.' The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary.

Since some men have the idea that God exists, God must exist in fact or man could never have conceived of God in the first place. That this is a circular argument has been noted by many who have refuted the argument precisely on the ground that it is circular. That all of man's arguments are more or less circular never occurs to most people, but this argument against the ontological argument is sufficient for humanists.

Now, while metaphysics is seldom discussed by anyone but the academic types, its importance is absolutely vital, especially when considering the problems of what is logically possible, what is the basis of authority for a particular argument or line of reasoning, and metaphysics is also directly related to the problems of epistemology and the problems of knowledge, i.e., how do you know you know.

And, since authority and logical argument is important for law as well as the problems of knowing in epistemological questions, the metaphysics of law should be a concern of us all.

But, when we turn to the legal theorists we find the following is typical of most when it comes to discussing the metaphysics of law:

"On the one side are those philosophers who assert that metaphysics is "the sovereign science," "competent to judge every other human science, rejecting as false eery scientific hypothesis which contradicts its own results." Maritain, An Introduction to Philosophy (1933) Ch. VI, p. 111. "[But] On the other hand, to many jurisprudents and social scientists metaphysics is an abstruse, obscure and futile body of speculation which has no significance for their problems."

Note that both these ideas above are from the humanists perspective and each cancels the other., not because there is any real force or authority for either argument, but because each in its own way asserts a relativistic argument that is incapable of making any truthful statement. The work in which these quotes are cited, goes on to say:

"These criticisms are partly justified by the terminology of metaphysics, which is vague because of the comprehensiveness of its subject matter. On the whole, metaphysics is the part of philosophy that has given it a bad reputation with the uninitiated."

What Patterson is really saying here is, metaphysics is too big a subject to be precise about and this fact has given it a bad reputation among the 'uninitiated,' i.e., those not in the know. But then, this makes perfect sense given the starting point of humanism, which is the autonomous reason of man that can know all truth without recourse to revelation from God. This tenet of humanism compels the humanist to confine himself to reasoning from the creation to the ultimate ground of reality, which no man has ever done. In simple terms, the humanist cannot get there from here.

But, as Drs. Cornelius Van Til and Rousas John Rushdoony have repeated pointed out, only if one starts with God will one argue truthfully and arrive at a definition for anything that actually conforms to the way things are. Any attempt to argue from Creation to the Creator, which is the basis of all being and hence the definer of the terms of metaphysics, is futile.

But, if one begins with God, the creator, ground, and sustainor of all being and metaphysics, one can then argue analogically from God the Creator to His Creation and solve the problems of metaphysics that are so important for establishing the authority of law and every other subject.

Patterson also says that lawyers and judges cannot avoid encountering metaphysical questions which must be dealt with if one wants to think clearly.

For jurisprudence, then, the chief importance of metaphysics is to know enough about it to avoid its pitfalls. Three examples of basic metaphysical problems are: the status of universals, the status of the "ought," and the nature of causation.

On Universals

Universals deal with the whole, the One as opposed to the many, the Unity of things as opposed to the Diversity of things. The Unity of all things is, for the Christian, found in the Godhead of Father , Son, and Holy Spirit. Universals are important for law because they deal with such topics as:

What is a rule of law? What is a legal duty? Do such things really exist or are they merely figments of the imagination, like the hobgoblins that were once used by ignorant parents and nurse-maids to frighten children?

If there are no metaphysical universals then there are no rules of law, no legal duties that bind lawyers, judges, and courts, and thus all decisions of judges are individual decisions that have no relation to any other decision, there is no precedent that binds a lawyer or judge and there are no rules to guide the courts decision in any matter. And, the end result of any case is the mere whim or fancy of some judge. This is, of course a purely relativistic position and means that what may be law for one court and judge in one case is not law in another identical case in which an entirely different decision that contradicts the earlier decision can be, and usually is, made.

The clearest example of courts such as these is the local traffic court in which many judges will not hesitate to say that the only law in that court is that which comes out of the judges mouth. For any man to attempt to enter into such courts to defend himself is sheer stupidity and folly which can have only one outcome, "guilty" as charged.

On Ethics

The status of the 'ought' or, what one 'should' do is dealt with in Ethics. For the Christian, we can state the proper position by paraphrasing the Apostle Paul, who says that men ought to worship God, their Creator. Men 'should' seek to glorify God and enjoy him forever, which is the goal or summum bonum of all Christian thought and life on Earth and in Heaven. The rules for ethical or Godly conduct are, for the Christian, found in Scripture which is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

For the humanists, however, things are far more complicated, if not impossible to decipher in ordinary speech and conversation. The humanists answer to the problems inherent in their system of ethics is mass confusion in a sandwich of garbage on leather spread with quagmire. The humanists answers range from situation ethics to the system of Immanuel Kant to the modern view which seeks to totally separate value from the facts about us.

Kant's original idea was to protect religion from science and he ended up by driving a wedge between reason and faith. Kant, in fact, separated 'reality', the realm of science, from value, in the intellectual disciplines (which included religion) with his scheme of 'phenomena and 'neumena,' and ended up by destroying both.

Patterson looks with approval on Kant's work when he says that

"The scientists makes his knowledge universal by consciously striving to keep out his prejudice. The ethical philosopher becomes more objective and more tolerant by being conscious of the leap from fact to value, and the law-maker, with a variety of means at his disposal, is even more aware of the evaluative theories at his disposal."

Thus, in law, at least, the law-maker becomes a god by determining for himself which of his many theories at his disposal he will apply to his next act on behalf of the people. Of course, this means that every other law-maker has an equal right to apply his theories to the acts he does and the only answer to the resulting chaos that comes out of the compromise between theories is, that one man must impose his will on all others so that at least one coherent view will control the end result. This means, clearly, a dictatorship and nothing less will do.

On Causation

Causation is a very important aspect of metaphysics and law. Patterson says,

"Both the metaphysical and the legal conception of cause originated with the common sense observation that for any given event an indefinite number of but-for causes can be discovered."

Causation in law can be seen in an example as follows:

[the] seller-promisee would not have made the good but for the act of the postman in delivering the perfidious buyer's offer; should the postman be held liable? The question whether all events are predetermined by inevitable causes, or some of them arise by chance or by the exercise of man's free will, is a metaphysical question on which, ... an answer in favor of the latter alternative is given by all legal systems which impute individual responsibility for harmful acts. Even if culpability (e.g., negligence or malice) is eliminated as a criterion of legal responsibility (as under Workman's Compensation Acts), some causal relation, however slight, must be found between the conduct of the person to be held responsible and the harm for which compensation is to be made (e.g., "arising out of and in the course of the employment").... Cause is one of those pervasive concepts which needs investigation to determine its significance in the context of a particular inquiry.

And, all this confusion above results in no real answer for the metaphysical problems associated with causation in law. Law has come to see, however, as a purely humanistic device, the application of 'proximate cause' as the result of an act of free will. One is responsible for the violations of law because one 'willfully' disobeyed the presumed norm or standard of conduct for a given society. This definition, however, fails to take into account a number of factors which have combined to reduce such a causation idea to a standing joke in polite society. Who really is responsible for things and the state of society? Can a criminal really be blamed for his theft when he grew up in a bad home? These and similar humanistic conceptions merely muddy the waters of causation because there really is no way to define, in humanism, why a man should be punished for a given act that is in violation of somebody's law somewhere.

For the Christian, the picture is far different and made clear in Scripture.

Man is responsible for his acts, not because he has a free will, but because he knows the truth and refuses to follow it. He knows what God requires and refuses to obey it. As Paul says;

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shown it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead: so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they know God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools...."

Thus, men are responsible for their lawlessness, and also for their negligence and malice, and free will has nothing to do with it. The Scripture not only tells us what sin is, according to God's Law, but it also describes the forms of punishment for that sin, both in the present and in the future and the hereafter.

Christian Courts,

Their Nature and Attributes

This begins a series on Christian Courts that a Christian Jural Society may implement once it has formed and lawfully implemented its Covenant. It is by no means intended to be exhaustive, nor is the series considered the final word as if it comes from God's mouth to the paper. It is merely intended to be suggestive of what form the Courts might take.

by John William

The Reader is requested to examine the work with the above in mind and is encouraged to make suggestions for changes in wording and in the addition of further information, rules, etc., to the overall statement of the work.

It is presumed that the Court will have at its disposal, a minimum library for determining the meaning of words, maxims of law, a set of state court decisions from ones own state and a set of federal court decisions. These sets of court decisions need not continue beyond 1860. From time to time the Reader will notice footnotes to works that may also be included in this library, along with books that deal specifically with the make-up of courts At-law as they existed in America prior to 1860, such as 'Indictments and the Office and Duty of Grand Jurors,' published in 1831.

One of these works is very good at showing the details of how the Supreme Court is implemented according to the Constitution. This work is, "A Treatise on the Organization, Jurisdiction, and Practice of the Courts of the United States, by Alfred Conkling. Third Edition, Revised and Corrected, Published at Albany, by W.C. Little and Company, Law Booksellers. (1856). This work of some 926 pages is now rare in this edition.

One method of using Conkling's work is not to follow it slavishly, since Our intent is somewhat different than his in that he was concerned with the courts of the united States, whereas we are concerned with Christian Courts. Thus, where necessary, we have modified and re-phrased work's such as Conkling's to conform more specifically to Christian doctrine and the Law of God.

Further, Our work is only concerned with those aspects of works such as Conkling's that implement Courts At-law, i.e., courts that hear actions in common law.

We begin with a word concerning the office of judges in Christian Courts.

It is likely that Christian Jural Societies may hold court and hear actions as an Assize Court, which means that while a judge is not required to hear cases before such a court, it it still an excellent idea if the jural society Covenant makes some provision for a judicial expert, well schooled in Scripture and common law, to advise the Court as they deem necessary, or as set forth in the society's Covenant.

A word of caution, the Society Covenant should not describe their court as an Assize court, because the old Assize courts could only hear actions involving a freehold and nothing else. Since Our Christian Courts will hear a good deal more than actions on freehold questions.

We raise the idea of an Assize court only to point out that Christian Jural Society Courts are like an Assize court only in the sense that they need not have a judge, though it is recommended that they have someone to act in that capacity.

We first consider what the requirements for a judge should be and how he is to be installed in office, whether by a general election of the county electors, by election of the Society, or by the appointment of a judge by some or all of the officers of the Society who may sit as a Special Judiciary Committee.

All these methods may be set forth in a Covenant, with each being applied as a particular set of circumstances arise. Thus, initially, a judge may be appointed by a Judiciary Committee from among those nominated by the Christian members of the Society. Later, the whole Society may elect a judge, and/or, the judge may be elected for a specific term at each Society general election in the county or parish.

Requirements for a judge are the same as those of all officers in the Society. First, he must be a Christian of unquestionable character with good standing in either a local church or ecclesiastical society, and he ... "must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;" [1 Tim 3:2] and, if he has children, they should be "faithful children not accused of riot or unruly." [Titus 1:6]

Examining a Candidate

All Candidates should stand for examination by the officers and members of a Society and answer questions on his Christian character and knowledge of Christian common law, Scripture, procedures, and process allowed in Christian Courts. The Judiciary Committee should submit for Candidates, a list of written questions on a wide variety of subjects, religious and legal. This examination may precede or follow questioning by the body. Usually, one is questioned first by the body in order to determine who is most qualified to take the examination.

The written examination should not be hurriedly prepared, just to get a judge in office quickly. To avoid this, the Judiciary Examinations, both for a judge, clerk, and Constable, should be prepared well in advance of the Society's first election.

And, when a Candidate takes a written examination, he should be allowed to use all the works in the library of the Society to complete it and during the examination, he should be monitored by the Judiciary Committee or some portion of the Committee comprising not less than three officers of the Society. The examination may be given over a period of days, for example, two hours a day for three or four days.

The Judiciary may appoint someone to assist the Candidate in finding resources in the library, supplying paper, pencils, etc. The Examination Assistant may be the Court clerk, or the Society Librarian.

When giving the examination, the Judiciary Committee must remember that it is more important for a Judge Candidate to know where to find what he needs to assist the Christian Court, than it is for a Candidate to know everything there is to know off the top of his head.

When the examination is completed and graded by the Judiciary Committee, the Committee may question a Candidate on wrong or incomplete answers, before the Society or the full Committee, and give a Candidate the chance to explain his alleged errors. Candidates must be allowed to justify wrong or incomplete answers for it may turn out, that the Committee has asked the wrong question, or has provided a wrong answer to a question..

Examinations should test a Candidates knowledge of God's Law, Christian common law actions, the proper form of common law process (which is quite technical), the rules of English as they apply to common law process.

The examination can be given in parts, and, as suggested above, each part may be given on a separate day.

Every Candidate should study "The Institutes of Biblical Law," by Rousas John Rushdoony, Volumes I and II, published by The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company (1973). This and other works by the same author are invaluable in seeing the historical manner in which the Law of God has been applied to thousands of situations.

Once a Candidate has been qualified, examined, and either appointed or elected to office, the Society may hold a ceremony to induct him into office as the other officers are inducted into office, according to the Rules of Protocol for the Society.

The induction ceremony may involve an affirmation (sometimes called an oath) of the form suggested in the Christian Jural Society Handbook, and short speeches by the officers, and the judge elect, at a dinner gathering of the Society. In addition, the Judges' Affirmation should contain a phrase such as the following:

"By my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, before whom this holy thing is holy, I will to the Good and Lawful Christians in this realm, be faithful and true, loving all that they love and shunning all that they shun, do justice to rich and poor alike according to the Law of God and the custom of the world; and never by my will or by my force, in word or in deed, will I do any thing that is hateful to them or contrary to The Law of God; on condition that they will hold me as I deserve and will furnish all that was agreed between us when I bowed myself before them and submitted to their will in Christ."

The Judge then forms the Court and publish a schedule of the Court Sessions that is consistent with the Rules established by the Society Judiciary Acts.

The Court Clerk

As designated in the Jural Society Covenant, there should be one court clerk, in whose office all the court's proceedings are entered and in whose hands all the records and paperwork of the court are kept.

The clerk's office must be at the same location where the Society holds its meetings, and he is prohibited from doing any act that may be construed as practicing law. He should place a bond with the Society denominated in dollars in silver in some amount determined by the Society and noted in the rules thereof. While he may not assist parties to an action with filing their case in the court, he will make certain that all process conforms to the Rules of Court process and must refuse any process that does not meet Style Manual requirements. He may not, however, rule on whether a demandant or defendant has filed the proper process for a particular action as this is the responsibility of first, the representative Townsmen, and second, the judge.

It is customary for the court to review the process and make certain that the process content is properly written for the action stated in the heading of the writ. If process is badly written such that its errors are fatal to a further processing of the action, the Court issues an order to dismiss the action if by a demandant, or an order to a defendant to file a new response to the action. Copies of such orders are given to all parties, their representative Townsmen, and to the Society. Parties may t hen apply for a new Court date in the current or a future Session.

If, Court business is brisk, a Society may wish to appoint or elect an Associate Justice to the court whose responsibility it is to approve all process before it is filed with the court clerk. It will thus be the Associate Justices responsibility to write the orders to dismiss or re-file a cause, but such orders can only be issued after judge has given his approval.

Please Note: No judge or other court officer shall be permitted to use a stamp for his signature on any document, and such signatures shall be made in black ink.

A court clerk may initiate, on his own filing with the court, an action to demand payments that may be due for his services for filing process and that which may the result from a court decision, when an action is settled that requires one or the other party to pay restitution. The action filed by the clerk in such matters is a formal Summary Proceeding of Attachment.

Sessions of the Court

As noted above, a court holds Sessions according to the Covenant or Rules of Court approved by the Society in its Judiciary Acts.

Unless otherwise determined by the Rules of Court or the Society, the length of the Session is normally set by the court itself, depending on case load. This was always the practice of the Federal and State courts before 1860, since the court alone knew what its work-load was at any given moment.

Thus, each Session may being on a specific day in each month, but the Session length, is determined by the Court based on how quickly the case load can be dispensed with.

Orders and additional process on a particular action heard in the court are written by the judge and until such are written, filed with clerk, and served on all parties, the action is not closed.

If a Society has space, as in a separate room, it is best that a Court Session and its records be kept separate from the records kept by the Society Scribe or Recordkeeper, although a copy of court decision and orders is usually lodged with the Society Records and Librarian.

The Assistance of Counsel

In all Courts Christian, it is customary to allow parties to any action to plead their own cause, and if they so choose, they may use a Townsmen, or some other Member of the Society as an Assistant Counsel. But, no party and his Counsel may plead, that is speak to the Court, at the same time. Only one voice may plead a cause before the court, and one only - for the entire case.

The power of determining who will speak is entirely within the discretion of the demandant or defendant.

No member of any association of attorneys, as in a Bar Association, may plead any cause or action in a Christian Court,even if that Attorney professes to be a Christian, nor is he allowed to witness proceedings from the gallery, and any party to an action who violates this rule must be fined by the court and the offending person ejected from the courtroom.

The reason is, argument of a cause in a Christian Court by a member of the Bar automatically compromises the action and disqualifies a court from hearing the cause. The admission of a Bar member into the Court imports a law that is utterly foreign to the law of Christian Courts.

Careful steps must be taken by the judge, clerk, and bailiff, to insure that no such violations ever occur. Some procedure must be implemented whereby the Court can protect itself from this eventuality.

Thus, whenever any person, not a member or officer of the Society, plans to attend the hearing of a cause, or give testimony in a cause, or provide physical evidence to the Court, information must be collected from such person by the Court clerk, to be reviewed by the judge, before the cause is ever brought to trial.

Such persons shall, as all other parties to an action filed in the Court, make an affirmation of his Christian faith and shall state explicitly that he is not a member of any Bar Association or other foreign entity.

Please Note: The testimony of an atheist is not admitted in a Christian Court.

There is one possible exception to the above rules.

It is possible that in time, de facto powers may recognize the Jural Society Courts validity and honor their subpoenas to those in foreign jurisdictions.

But, even if this does not happen, Society members and officers can still file actions against those in foreign jurisdictions through existing county clerks in their ex officio capacity as clerk of the superior court, i.e., as clerk of the At-law court.

In this case, it is entirely possible for the Society to subpoena defendants in a foreign jurisdiction to appear in the Christian Court and give testimony, or appear as a defendant.

If a party is called as a defendant or to give testimony or provide evidence, by this means, he shall strictly follow the procedures outlined above that are necessary to protect the sanctity of the Court.

The Society Counsel

The Society may in its discretion, appoint or elect one man to act as the Society Counsel in filing actions against parties outside the Society, in foreign jurisdictions. In general, the Society Counsel will have the same qualifications as a judge, including the examination requirement.

When Society Counsel issues process it is served by Elisors through the Heralds' Office. The Herald selects the Elisors and receives back from them the Proof of Service, a copy of which the Herald files in his own records, while the original is returned to the Court.

A Society Counsel may, upon request from the Society, the Court, or any other officer of the Society, give advice or render an opinion on some point of law.

Court Reporter

The decisions of the court are published by a Court Reporter who shall have the responsibility to publish decisions in a uniform manner. He shall also be responsible to print and make copies of such reports and decisions and deposit a specific number of copies with the court clerk, the Society Recordkeeper or Scribe, and make copies available to Society officers and members at a nominal cost and this task shall be carried out in a reasonable amount of time after a decision is rendered. The number of mandatory copies a Reporter must make and where the are deposited is set by the Society. A deadline shall be allotted for a Reporter to finish these tasks.

A Society may require a Reporter to forward copies of the court's decisions to the Secretary of State of the State in which the court sits, as a courtesy, or to send copies to other foreign jurisdictions.

Court Bailiff

The Court Bailiff shall have charge of all moneys deposited with the court, shall maintain order in the court at the judge's discretion and shall eject anyone from the courtroom as directed by the judge.

Assize Courts

While the Courts of the Society function like an Assize court, if a judge is appointed or elected to the Court, he shall act as a referee, maintain proper procedures and good order in the court, see that the rights of all parties are fully protected before and during the trial of the action, and shall advise all parties, including their Assistant Counsel of any violations of Court Rules, and if such violations warrant it, a judge shall have the right to sequester a jury while he administers corrective measures, or fines, against the offending parties.

The judge shall implement the jury's decision as specified, and see to it that the bailiff administers restitution, as the Law of God requires.

Ecclesiastical Courts

Any party to an action, a member of the jury, or the court itself, may request by an appeal in writing and by giving proper notice to all, that an ecclesiastical court be convened to hear a point of law or render a decision as to restitution that must be made by a defendant if convicted of the offense given in the demandant's cause.

Such court shall be convened within as short a time as possible in order not to delay the other court's proceedings, and shall render its opinion in written form which shall be read aloud in the court before the cause before it proceeds to its conclusion.

The ecclesiastical court should consist of not less than twelve men and their decision on the matter before them must be carried by a significant majority, i.e., a two-thirds majority or more.

Next Month we will continue this series and cover such topics as; pre-trial procedures, the county clerk's office, the Rules of Court, etc..

The Internet:

Commercial Trap of The Twenty-First Century?

In the early days of the automobile, especially during the 1920's, a new phenomena appeared in the land--car theft. The Federal and State governments responded by setting up a registration system for all vehicles. If the car was stolen and the State recovered it, officials would know who it belonged to, and they could then return it to its rightful owner.

But, instead of this registration being a one time fee, merely to create the registration record and store it, it became an annual fee, and thus, it was an on-going benefit which the State could withdraw if the car owner failed to continue paying the fee. The whole thing appeared to be justified by a real need to stop car theft, and the registration fees were very low, at first.

Then, along came F.D. Roosevelt and converted us all to enemies of the Federal corporation known as the United States. This was done merely by changing a word in the "Trading with the Enemy Act," of 1917 with an Executive Order. According to the act, all enemies of the United States doing business 'within' the United States must be licensed, and all of a sudden, everyone had to have a driver's license, and the registration fees went up, in part because the Federal government required all automakers to put a Vehicle Identification Number on each car they made.

Of course, this new benefit and his newly created COUNCIL ON STATE GOVERNMENTS had to be paid for, and the registration fees went up, and all of a sudden, the automobile became a piece of commercial property, and another apparently innocent benefit of the government became a 'commercial trap.'

History is blanketed by these kinds of subversions on the part of the Federal and State governments and we need only mention Social Security, the 'free' home delivery of mail, and '401k plans' for the Reader to see what we mean.

The question is--is the Internet and its worldwide network of computer systems just one more commercial trap that the Federal government has allowed to exist but which will, at the appropriate time, become another one of those apparently innocent 'little benefits' for which a Federal and State fee will be charged, and which will, of course, convey the necessary 'minimum contacts' the government needs to regulate and tax it fully. That would mean, of course, that all who use the Internet would come under the direct authority of the Federal government, ex post facto perhaps, and the Internet would become just another tool of robbing the masses of their life, liberty and property.

Lest you think this is not a serious possibility, consider the following:

First, the Internet was originally ARPANET, a Defense Department funded and controlled computer network that was designed to link defense contractors. Then the universities got involved because they also participated as research consultants and sub-contractors on thousands of Federal projects.

It wasn't long, of course, before the commercial service providers got involved, and whereas just six years ago there were only a few dozen, there are now millions of everyday Americans 'hooked' on the Internet. It has of course been misused by 'the kiddy porners' and other such deviates, which has given government regulation its first foot in the door. What will be next?

Second, when the King's Men began to form and publish their works, and recopy the great old law books, we saw the Internet as an ideal way to propagate the message of Christian law reform across the land and announced Our intention to set up a National Computer Network for News Patrons. As an afterthought, we decided to do some investigating of where the Internet stood in terms of law. Was there a way to use the Internet without getting sucked into the trap of commercial law and the lex mercatoria? This was the most important question we had to answer.

It turns out that all the designations used by INTERNIC (a domain name regulatory body) such as .com, .org, .net, and so on, are all commercial in nature.

Thus, after digging in every nook and cranny we could find in the Internet, to determine the standing in law of all these different Internet designations, we have not only failed to find anything definitive on the legal standing of these designations, but we find further that there is no set standard as to who should use a .com, .org, and .net. INTERNIC will not divulge any information on the legal standing of these designations because "law is not within their area of expertise." And, this is the group that supposedly controls who gets what!!!

Now, one does not have to be a weather man in order to see that large, murky, gray or dark clouds can be a problem when they begin to gather.

And, all those groups out there who are supposedly guarding our freedom of speech on the Internet base their understanding of the law on statutes, all of which are commercial in nature.

For these reasons, and many more that could be cited, we have decided not to mount an Internet site and expose ourselves and The Christian Jural Societies to possible involvements or entanglements with the Federal commercial jurisdictions.

Though some of the King's Men still have Internet e-mail, this will likely not last long and will be terminated in the next few months.

Our failure to mount an Internet site has been noted by many of those who read The News, and for this we apologize and beg forgiveness.

Accordingly, we have begun to research alternatives for providing the same information by different means. Whether this means setting up a BBS (which means News Patrons will have long distance expenses), or setting up and starting an Internet-look-alike, has not yet been decided. We may end up with a combination of the above.

In the mean time, we are offering at no charge to those News Patrons who request it, the following books on floppy disc:

Military Government and Martial Law.

The Law of Mandamus.

The Presidency and the Courts.

A Treatise on American Citizenship.

The Confessions of Augustine.

U. S. and the States under the Constitution

Call 818-347-7080 to request the discs.

We still believe that the computer and its capabilities are of vital importance to the success of the Christian Jural Societies and law reformers, but currently we cannot in good conscience go the Internet route.

If you have any input or suggestions as to how we can achieve the goals we have set for a National Computer Network, we would be very pleased to hear from you.

For those who have an Internet account, you may reach us with your comments and suggestions at: johnq@qnet.com. This account will not remain open much longer, so please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you and God Bless.

Avoid, Eschew, Shun, Elude

Avoid, in French eviter, Latin evito, compounded of e and vito, probably from viduus, void, signifies to make one's self void or free from a thing. Eschew and shun both come from the German scheuen, Swedish sky, etc., when it signifies to fly. Elude, in French eluder, Latin eludo, compounded of e and ludo, signifies to get one's self out of a thing by a trick.

Avoid is both generic and specific; we avoid in eschewing or shunning. or we avoid without eschewing or shunning. Various contrivances are requisite for avoiding; eschewing and shunning consist of only going out of the way, of not coming in contact; eluding, as its derivation denotes, has more of artifice in it than any of the former. We avoid a troublesome visitor under real or feigned pretences of ill-health, prior engagement, and the like; we eschew evil company by not going into any but what we know to be good; we shun the sight of an offensive object by turning into another road; we elude a punishment by getting out of the way of those who have the power of inflicting it. Prudence enables us to avoid many of the evils to which we are daily exposed: nothing but a fixed principle of religion can enable a man to eschew the temptations to evil which lie in his path: fear will lead us to shun a madman, whom it is not in our power to bind: a want of all principle leads a man to elude his creditors, whom he wishes to defraud. We speak of avoiding a danger, and shunning a danger; but to avoid it is in general not, to fall into it; to shun it is with care to keep out of the way of it." Crabb's English Synonymes (1890), by George Crabb.

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

Suppose some little insect, so small as to be imperceptible to the human eye, were to carry this world, by its tiny mouthfuls, to the most distant star the hand of God has placed in the heavens. Hundreds of millions of years are required for the performance of a single journey. The insect commences upon the leaf of a tree, and takes its load, so small that even the microscope cannot discover that it is gone, and sets out upon its endless journey. After millions and millions of years have rolled away it arrives back again to take its second load. Oh what interminable ages must pass before the one leaf shall be removed! In what period of coming time would the whole tree be borne away? When would the forest be gone? And when would that insect take the last particle of this globe and bear it away in its long, long journey? Even then, eternity would but have commenced. The spirit then in existance would still look forward to eternity, endless, unchangeable, illimitable, rolling before it. The mind sinks down perfectly exhausted with such contemplations. Yes! our existence runs parrallel with that of God. So long as He endures, so long shall that flame which He has breathed into our bosoms glow and burn; but it must glow in the brilliance and the beauty of heaven, or burn with lurid flame and unextinguishable woe.

Eternity

Be a Good Neighbor

A man wished to drain a marshy pool in his garden, and very imprudently turned the water in, under the fence, to his neighbors garden. The man whose rights were thus invaded was a Christian. He said nothing, but immediately employed a man to dig a trench and provide for the removal of the water. He greeted his neighbor as he daily met him with his accustomed cordiality, and was more careful than ever to set him the example of integrity and high-minded generousity. Whether the man who was guilty of this meanness ever felt ashamed of his conduct we cannot tell, but this we know; that the harmony which had existed between the two families remained uninterrupted; and they lived, side by side, year after year, in perfect peace.

Said another one, who lived near by, and witnessed this transaction, "It is an outrage which I would not tolerate. I would build a strong dam by the side of my fence, and drive the water back again upon him." This is the spirit of the world. Let us see how this plan would have worked. In the first place, it would have enraged the individual thus frustrated in his sordid undertaking. And the more fully conscious he was that he was in the wrong, the more would his malignity have been excited. We can better bear the injuries which others inflict upon us than the consciousness that it is our own dishonorable conduct which has involved us in difficulties. He immediately would have adopted retaliatory measures, and either have thrust his bar through the opposing wall, or have contrived some other scheme by which he might annoy his adversary. Provocations and retaliations would have ensued in rapid succession. A family feud would probably have been at once enkindled, extending to the children as well as the parents, which might never have been extinguished. Immediately there would have ensued a train of petty annoyances, leading eventually to an expensive law-suit, and embittering years of life.

As it was, the Christian governed his conduct by the principles of the Gospel. He submitted to the wrong; and probably, by submitting to it in the spirit which Christianity enjoins, converted the event into a blessing to himself, his family, and his neighbor. The occurence was forgiven, and in a few days forgotten; and the family lived years, side by side, in friendship, and prosperity, and perfect peace. Is it not better to follow the advice God gives, than to surrender ourselves to the dominion of our own passions?

Issue the Twentieth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Christian Courts, and Epistemological Self-consciousness, Part Two...

Admissions and Confessions, Part Eight...

Woman: The Unsung Heroine of War...

Book Reviews, "Administrative Justice' and 'Commission on Intergovernmental Relations'...

Exercising Your Right of Avoidance, Part Two..

Civil Rights: The Road to Serfdom, Part Two...

Miscellaneous Notes...

Scripture and the Law Merchant, Part Three...

The Law of Nature vs. God's Law, A Law Review, Part Two......

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

and Epistemological Self-Consciousness

Christian Courts,

(continued from Issue the Nineteenth)

As we seek to establish Christian Courts in which Christians can bring their actions in the protection of life, liberty, land, and chattel property, it will require that the Christian grow in his understanding of the philosophy of Our system of law. For this philosophy will govern and guide not only the establishment of the Courts, but the law heard in Our courts, the procedures we will use, and the process that is filed or served by demandants (plaintiffs) and defendants.

This entire process is more a matter of reforming and reconstructing that which is already available to us, but which has been lost through Our own failure to 'remember the old ways.' Thus, we can take the forms, process, procedures, and rules of the old-style courts at-law (common law) and infuse them with new meanings that embody God's Law. This in turn, will require a whole new way of thinking on a much deeper level than we have done before.

Dr. Cornelius Van Til, the father of Christian presuppositional apologetics, stressed the importance of Christians being epistemologically self-conscious. Indeed, the idea that the whole warp and woof of history is the gradual epistemological self-consciousness of Christians runs throughout Dr. Van Til's works. Thus, Van Til had a positive view of the future and in principle he was what we would call a post-millenialist, i.e., one who believed that Christ returns after the Bride (the church) has made herself ready through the agency of the Holy Spirit.

Epistemological self-consciousness is a long word with a really very simple meaning. Since epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with the study of knowing, i.e., how does one know that one knows anything. What is the basis of certainty in what we know. Most people today, have no idea what their basis of knowing is and this factor is absolutely crucial.

The evolutionist may think he knows that the earth is billions of years old, but is it? How does he know this? The Christian believes in God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit but, how does the Christian know this? One may believe in the validity of God's Law and the common law but, how does he know that such is a valid form of Lawful expression?

We are not talking about knowing a set of facts. This is not the epistemological answer because facts must be integrated into a system of thought which, in turn, is built on some more ultimate foundation. All facts are interpreted facts the moment we perceive them. But, by what means do we interpret them and how do we know that Our interpretation is the true one. This is a major problem for all knowing in the world we live in.

It's a problem because, whether we 'know' it or not, the vast majority of people act as if all knowing were merely a matter of opinion. If you doubt this, try and engage someone in a conversation about law today and they will invariably resort to arguing that 'so and so says,' or 'I've heard that' or, 'my pastor says.' In other words, knowing the truth is not what I know, but what someone else knows. And, this kind of knowing is the heart and soul of Atheistic relativism wherever such thinking is found. Sadly, this problem of relativistic knowing has crippled the Christian church and reduced it to its current level of impotence and apostasy.

The victims of relativistic knowing spend a major part of their lives running around in the dark or a dense fog and bumping into walls, doing things without really knowing what they're doing or why. They operate by 'feelings,' and 'opinion,' not by real knowledge. Their basis is faith in man. Consequently, for these people, life is one long and continuous series of mistakes, many of which are very costly. They are again, victims of their lack of knowing.

Even when they think they know something very strongly, it has no real strength or power because there is always the element of doubt which, as time goes on, creeps in to undermine their effort. For such people, it is better to do nothing about the world condition than to take anything or any cause too seriously to pursue it with all of ones' heart, soul, mind, and body. These are the people who are always waiting on the sidelines for someone else to do it or take the first step. The law reform movement is riddled with this kind of thinking because they really don't know.

Many examples of this could be cited, but one will suffice for the present. For years the King's Men have been telling everyone not to sign "U.C.C. 1-207 without prejudice" or one of the variants of this phrase, on any document that purports to be lawful. Yet, in spite of repeated warnings, they do it anyway because 'my friend says' that this is the way to do it. By this act, their so-called Lawful, or common law process, is shammed and Lawful process is turned into commercial process. The process fails, ending up in a major hole from whence they cannot extract themselves.

This happens because they do not know the difference between Lawful and commercial process when they see it. Knowing the right thing to do is now, and may always be foreign to them because they do not know. And, spending many hours in the law books will not help. Again, it is not a matter of gathering facts of law, because facts do not speak for themselves. They must be interpreted. And, this process of interpretation takes more work than reading the law books!

Now, as Christians, we are supposed to live on the basis of God's Knowledge found in Scripture. But, in spite of having the ultimate Word of God, the final standard in all matters of faith and practice, and being called as a unique people, set apart from the world, most Christians function no differently than Non-christians.

They're in debt up to their eye-balls, divorce is rampant, and most will not obey God's Law. Indeed, it has been said quite candidly and quite often, that the majority of today's Christians are among the most ignorant and lawless people in the world! They do not know how to know. Most wouldn't know the truth even if it ran over them in their own drive-way, and what's more, they not only don't know how ignorant they are - they don't want to know. Because if they knew, it might force them to repent and reform their lives and change their ways and this could bring them into confrontation with the world powers and their own superfluities of life.

Take, for example, the phrase that Christians use every day -- "I just love Jesus." When asked to define love, most will say something like "Love is patient, love is kind, love is blah, blah, blah," and so on. But, these verses 'describe' love, not 'define' it. Thus, they do not know the difference between a description and a definition. If one cannot define love, one does not know whether he loves or not. Without such a definition, held clearly and self-consciously in the mind, one could hate someone else and never know it!!!

Of course, Scripture defines love very clearly, but this definition implies certain things that the modern Christian doesn't want to deal with.

Thus, Our Lord defines love as; "If ye love Me, keep My commandments." John 14:15; and Paul defines love at Romans 13:10 as, "Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." Thirteen times Scripture commands us to keep the Lord's commandments in the Old and New Testaments. But, do Christians keep the Lord's commandments? Obviously not. Thus, Christians do not know what love is, in spite of the clear teaching of Scripture.

Above, we said that the reason Christians do not deal with the definition of love is because it has implications that they do not like. These implications are, that if a Christian is to truly love his wife and family, the church body, his neighbors, his enemies, and all else, then he can only do so by keeping God's Law. If we take this seriously, it means we must obey God rather than men, and this will bring us into confrontation with the world. The bottom line is, love is what one does, not what one feels or professes. 'Actions speak louder than words' is an implied maxim of God's Law.

The reason for this little side-trip into the definition of love is simply to point out that, knowing God's plan for us is not difficult if we stick to God's Word and not the opinions of men and the humanist world. We must reject all forms of relativism. In Christianity therefore, knowing, on its simplest level, is easy. We simply compare Scripture with Scripture, or as the Reformers used to say, sola scriptura, (scripture alone).

The implications of this are many. God's Law is not merely key to understanding what love is. It is also key to success in the law reform movement if God's Law is the content or meaning of all Lawful process that Christians use to defend their life, liberty, land, and chattel property.

At first sight, Our examples above would seem to solve the problem of knowledge and knowing. But, do they? Superficially, yes. But, this is as far as it goes. In the larger sense, we must take full account of the fact that the ultimate key to knowing is having the standard of God's Word, an absolute standard, which is the opposite of the humanist's relative standard.

We can only be said to know, truly, provided we fully accept God's standard as Our standard for truth. Only when God's Word is the absolute and final standard for all knowing can we be said to know anything. This does not mean that we will know everything in the exhaustive sense, for only God can know exhaustively. But, what we do know, we can know truly, that it is the truth and on this basis we can act, and on no other.

Thus, if God's Word is Our only and final authority in all matters of faith and practice in the general sense, then in the particular sense of Law, it is also Our standard and by this means we can evaluate all forms of law and make a determination as to which is true and which is false. If we, for example, studied Scripture to determine if commercial law is valid for Christians to use, the standard of God's Law would have made it clear that the law of the merchant is not Biblical.

The Christian would have then rejected the use of things such as "U.C.C. 1-207" at the outset. It would not have mattered who said what about the matter, i.e., it would not have mattered what the opinions of men were. And thus, we would have rejected it, no matter how stupid and ignorant the world, or Our friends thought we were. God's standard would have come first and last and we would have clung to His Law and rejected the commercial law. (See 'What is the Law Merchant?' in Issue the Sixteenth of The News).

In a very real sense, we would have known the truth of the matter.

Thus, we come to the question of Christian common law and the epistemologically self-conscious Christian. And, when we say 'self-conscious' we mean that we know consciously (as opposed to sensing, or feeling) what we know about law in general, and God's Law in particular.

For many months we have stressed the fact that we are not merely interested in the common law, per se, because this term, without qualification, has been compromised by the Romans who run the present imperial powers. The current idea of common law is not the common law that we all think about when we discuss the Writ system. It is, in fact, through the work of Lord Mansfield and others, corrupted to mean or include the commercial law, or lex mercatoria. Thus, humanist man has re-created the common law in his own image and to suit his own purposes.

And, when we see the phrase in current State constitutions such as; "Unless contrary to existing law, the English common law shall be the rule for all the courts of this State," it means that the rule in the courts of the State embraces Mansfield's commercial common law, not the original common law of England and America.

Christians in the law reform movement must know this. Failure to take it into account means the difference between success or failure in all we do. For if we presume that we can serve or file common law process in the current courts, meaning the common law of old, we are wrong and the process will fail and we will lose Our case.

If, on the other hand, we mean to use the common law of old and make certain a court knows what we mean, we must use the phrase 'Christian common law' when we refer to common law. Otherwise, the court must assume we mean commercial law, and not the older, Christian idea of common law, which is non-commercial.

Further, when we write the process itself, it must, at every point, embody God's view of Law and not that of men or the so-called 'patriots.' Man cannot serve two masters and thus we cannot mix different kinds of law in Our process.

One may think that we must know all forms of law in order to avoid mixing different systems and corrupting Our process. This, however, is not necessarily so. The most important law to know is God's Law because it is Our standard by which we measure and judge all other systems of law, process, and procedure. Thus, we need not spend a fortune on a massive library to know what other systems of law teach. We are ahead of the game if we know the truth of God's Law, first.

With all the commentaries, lexicons, dictionaries, and other tools available for use with the Bible, it is far easier to get to know God's Law than it is man's law. Then, when we confront other law and measure it by God's standard, we can judge whether such law is Godly or not.

The point is, if God's Law is Our standard and Scripture the basis of all we know, then the background or presupposition of all Our knowledge is Scripture and in this we can have the utmost confidence and act accordingly. We can press the Crown Rights of King Jesus and advance the Kingdom of God on all fronts.

By this means, we will know what we know and why we know it and we can know the truth that will set us free from the Roman system that corrupts the land. Epistemologically self-conscious Christians will take the forms and procedures of Christian common law and fill it with God's meaning in His Law and against such there is no other law with force and effect. In such a milieu there will be no doubt as to what constitutes real Law and what doesn't.

Yes, we will make mistakes, some may go to jail, some may lose all their worldly possessions, as many others already have. But, they will have served a very real need and purpose in God's Plan for Christian Dominion throughout all the Earth. Gradually, line upon line, tittle upon tittle, stone upon stone, the Holy Spirit of God will work through His church and we will once again know what Reformation and Reconstruction really mean.

Thus, Our goal is nothing less than the establishment of Christian Courts, manned by Christians for Christians that adjudicate matters of law based upon God's Law. Let us hope that we will not forget to teach Our children and their children's children that "... where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." 2 Corinthians 3:17.

Written and compiled by John Joseph

Part Eight

The District of Columbia is a separate political community and jurisdiction from the states:

"The District of Columbia is a separate political community in a certain sense, and in that sense may be called a State whose sovereign power is lodged in the Government of the United States; but it is not strictly a State within the meaning of that term as used in the Constitution. The inhabitants of the District of Columbia are not Citizens of a state." Metropolitan R. R. v. District of Columbia, 132 U.S. 9; Talbott v. Silver Bow County, 139 U.S. 444; Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch 453; Hooe v. Jamieson, 166 U.S. 397.

This being the case then, the laws made for the District and those subject to the jurisdiction thereof, which are international and interstate, do not enter the Christian states, ala Swift v. Tyson. They do enter the States of the Union, however, which is a commercial venue, and not a Christian Venue:

"No statute of Arkansas inhibits persons described as belonging to 'low and lawless types of humanity' coming into the state. Under the 14th Amendment, and under the interstate commerce clause, of the Constitution, they now have that right [privilege]." State of Arkansas v. Kansas & T. Coal Co., 96 F. 353. [Emphasis and insertion added. Note the difference in the source of the right. A difference in source points to a different and separate venue.]

This being the case then, these instruments are made by a law which exists in a foreign venue attempting to penetrate the Christian Venue. The law from the other venue must be evidenced in some way:

"The existence of any foreign law must be proved by evidence showing what it is. And there is no legal presumption that the law of a foreign state is the same as it is here. 2 Stark. Ev. (Metcalf's ed.) 568; Male v. Roberts, 3 Esp.Rep. 163. If a foreign law is unwritten, it may be proved by parol evidence; but if written, it must be proved by documentary evidence. Kenny v. Clarkson, 1 Johns.R. 385; Frith v. Sprague, 14 Mass.R. 455; Consequa v. Willings, 1 Peter's Circ.C.R. 229. The laws of other States in the Union are in these respects foreign laws. Raynham v. Canton, 3 Pick. 293.

The sin for which America is now being judged was seen over one hundred years ago by one who recognized the commercial evils coming and tried to do something about it, at that time:

"In politics and morals, as in mechanics, it is impossible to war successfully against principle. The principle will ultimately prevail. The wickedest of all follies, and the absurdest of all crusades, are those which attempt to make things equal which God in his wisdom has made unequal. It is a struggle against a principle which can never succeed, where reason has sway, until 'the leopard can change his spots and the Ethiopian his skin.'" Alexander Stephens, quoted in Wilson, Patriotic Gore (1962), p. 411.

Must all Christians pay for this? Surely; for the sin, being interstate, is a disgrace to all peoples in their respective states, Christian and non-Christian, "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." The difference is that Christians have peace with God through Jesus Christ --non-Christians do not. All "Churchian- ity" types should take heed now:

"This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments [codes, rules, regulations and interpretations] of men.For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 15:8-9 and Matthew 5:20. [Insertion added.]

Read also Nehemiah 5, which is the present situation today, condensed. Essentially the secular mime of Law is running rampant to satisfy the lust for power of fanatic bankers, their litigation-crazed attorneys, and their pawn "governments" licensing speculation in the profits derived from their exploitation of ignorant Christians, using the "maxim" of "law":

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur--The populace wishes to be deceived, therefore let it be deceived."

but:

"Deceptis non deciptientibus, jura subveniunt--The laws help persons who are deceived, not those deceiving." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2131.

This must be looked at in the proper context, however. There are remedies at Law for deceit, but not when you go into a court legislated for the purpose of balancing your "equal rights" with the bondholders' rights:

"Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods." Ex 23:32; "But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted." Matthew 23:8, 10-12.

This is the doctrine of consociation--no one brother is over the other in pre-eminence, for Christ is the Head, and all Christians have pre-eminence over the anti- or non-Christians. The only Rights in common that Christians exercise are those with which they are vested by God through Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; and, they are not privileges from codes, rules, and, regulations of man. The seal of the Holy Spirit evidences the character of the Good and Lawful Christian; the seal of Caesar evidences the character of the "low and lawless":

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."

And:

"No man can serve two masters.You cannot serve God and mammon."

These two verses are mutually exclusive, and not to be confused. By the Law no man is justified; but Good and Lawful Christians are justified by Christ, for Christ fulfilled the Law, and gave each Good and Lawful Christian Standing in Law, whereas 'civilians' stand under the Law.

The other remedy concerns itself with ignorance of fact. Let us first set up the scenario. The District of Columbia is a separate political community and jurisdiction from the states.

"The courts of this State are not presumed to know the laws of other States or foreign nations, nor can they take judicial cognizance of them, till they are legally proved before them. [*130] But when established by legal proof, they are to be construed by the same rules and to have the same effect upon all subjects coming within their operation, as the laws of this State.
That the lex loci rei sitae must govern the descent of real estate, is a principle of our law, with which every one is presumed to be acquainted. But what the lex loci is the Court can only learn from proof adduced before them. The parties knew, in fact, that the intestate died seised of estate situated in the State of New York. They must be presumed to know that the distribution of that estate must be governed by the laws of New York. But are they bound, on their peril, to know what the provisions of these laws are? If the judicial tribunals are not presumed to know, why should private citizens be? If they are to be made known to the court by proof, like other facts, why should not ignorance by private individuals have the same effect upon their acts as ignorance of other facts? Juris ignorantia est, cum jus nostrum ignoramus, does not extend to foreign laws or the statutes of other states. Haven v. Foster (1829), 9 Pick.(Mass.) 111, 129-130. [Emphasis added.]

Ignorance of law signifies ignorance of the law of one's own country. ibid.

Ignorance of the law of a foreign government is ignorance of fact. ibid.

In this respect, the laws of other states in the Union are foreign laws. ibid.

In other words, Christians know the Law of Christendom because it is revealed in God's Creation, and by Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and is written on their hearts, but it is not imputed that they know the law of the stranger, i.e. Lincoln's 'United States' or his filthy and bloody national banks. If the courts don't know the laws of strangers, how could Christians, i.e. Lincoln's 'United States' and his national banks? If courts require proof of the law of strangers should not Christians require this of the strangers in their state, i.e. Lincoln's 'United States' and his national banks? This is ignorance of fact, and not of law.

Ignorance of fact excuses and is a good plea in a court at Law, but not a legislative court, which is where most relief is sought by these filthy banks during a foreclosure. The issue essentially is: One, that the law of the stranger has never been brought forward and proved to be law at the time any engagements were made or undertaken (Why?); Second, the fact that a stranger wishes his foreign law preferred over that of the Christian state raises a political issue do you follow the Law of Christ or the law of the stranger? Which is the Law of Peace? Who has the Truth? If it is the Truth, then why the attempt to hide the Truth? Possibly because they have no law because it lacks substance, it is fiction:

The Deity has not given any order or family of men authority over others, and if any men have given it they only could give it for themselves. Samuel Adams.

Fictio juris non est ubi veritas;-- Where truth is, fiction of law does not exist. Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), Maxim, p. 2134.
Fictio cedit veritati, fictio juris non est ubi veritas;-- Fiction yields to truth, where the truth appears, there can be no fiction of law. Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), Maxim, p. 2134.
Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi;-- Truth fears nothing but concealment. Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), Maxim, p. 2167.

Can an officer of the law plead ignorance of Christian Law? Surely not:

"For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Romans 1:17-21. [Emphasis added.]
Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all in a sworn officer of the law. In re McCowan (1917), 177 C. 93, 170 P. 1100.

When Christians begin to understand, apply and Righteously exercise the Law of God, then substance shall return to the forms of government which existed before Lincoln's War v. All Christian states, because it was Christian communities that were destroyed by Lincoln:

"These rights [of Christians] can be destroyed only by destroying the [Christian] communities which have inherited them. To destroy [Christian] communities for the enjoyment of their inherent rights, is a crime of nameless atrocity." Judge Henry Clay Dean, Crimes of the Civil War and Curse of the Funding System (1868), p. 27. [Insertions added.]
"The traditional symbols of community in the West, the traditional images and metaphors, have been above all, religious and legal. In the twentieth century, however, for the first time, religion has become largely a private affair, while law has become largely a matter of practical expediency. The connection between the religious metaphor and the legal metaphor has been broken. Neither expresses any longer the community's vision of its future and its past; neither commands any longer its passionate loyalty." Berman, Law and Revolution (1983), p. vi. [Emphasis added.]
"For resistance to law, every government has ample powers to punish offenders; for usurpation, governments have provided no adequate remedy." Judge Henry Clay Dean, Crimes of the Civil War and Curse of the Funding System(1868), p. 35.
"Public policy is dictated by the law making power of the legislature, and is found in the general tenor of statutes, and in direct enactments. Female Academy v. Sullivan, 116 Ill. 375. When the legislature, within the powers conferred by the constitution, has declared the public policy, and fixed the rights of the people by statute, the courts cannot declare a different policy or fix different rights. The remedy if any is needed, is with the people and not with the courts. Probasco v. Raine, O. Supr. Ct., June 1893. Robert Clowry Chapman, Public Policy, 2 Mich. Law Journal 308, 309 (1893). [Emphasis added.]

There simply is no other solution available outside of Christians taking Dominion under God to re-establish their communities:

Absentem accipere debemus eum qui non est eo loco in quo petitur; -- We must consider him [the Good and Lawful Christian] absent who is not in that place in which he is sought. Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), Maxim, p. 2124. [Insertion added.];
Res perit domino suo; --The destruction of the thing [Christian civil government] is the loss of its owner. Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1859), Maxim, vol. II, p. 145.

Until next month, may God Bless you All Richly and guide you away from the evil one.

Book Reviews

"Administrative Justice and The Supremacy of Law in the United States' by John Dickinson, (1927)

'Commission on Intergovernmental Relations' by U.S. Gov't. (1955)

'Administrative Justice and the Supremacy of Law in America' gives us a unique look into the humanistic autonomous reasoning of the Twentieth Century Law Profession.

This book is an excellent tool for looking into the mind of the enemy.

Why has law in America come to the low point it has? Why is it that man's law can be one thing one minute and something else the next minute? Why do lawyers practice the 'ethics' they do? What law does an Administrative Agency really have? Why are Administrative Agencies 'above it all'?

These and many related questions are answered quite openly in this book. The following are excerpts from the book.

The True Nature of Government

"Governments have been more and more becoming agencies for the direct supply of public services to their constituents. The oldest instance is the post-office. Other examples in the case of our Federal government are the Bureau of War Risk Insurance, the Shipping Board, and the Irrigation Service. Municipalities frequently engage in the supply of water and light to their inhabitants. Closely analogous to the administration of such business or quasi-business projects is the task of administering the distribution of a fund, as in the case of pensions, or of a domain, such as the public lands. In all these instances the government stands on one side of an essentially business relationship, and the individual, as customer or beneficiary, on the other. In this field, accordingly, it is not unfair to regard administrative adjudication as primarily a step in carrying on the business of government; it adjudicates what may be called for the sake of convenience the statutory 'privileges' of individuals rather than their more fundamental 'rights.'"

"No system of pure 'regulation by law' could exist, or has ever existed. Government has always acted on its own motion, and for other purposes than to enforce the judgments of a court."

Arbitrariness of man's law

"Law is an artificial system which is always gathering new material. The controverted points of one generation become the settled rules of the next, and fresh work is built up on them in turn."

"But the insistence upon a regime of law entails consequences which are not always well realized. It is quite inconsistent with the Austinian notion that law and the command of a sovereign are synonymous. For from moment to moment the sovereign may issue contrary commands."

"The heart of the legal system is in its concepts. These are the fixed points which introduce an artificial stability into the ebb and flow of human relations--the hard identities which for its own purposes the law impresses upon resemblances, to create certainty through ability to predict the legal consequences of acts."

Miscellaneous Chapter Titles

Regulation by government v. regulation by Law

Legal Order in Fields of disputed Social Policy

Meaning of 'Supremacy of Law'

Court review of Administrative Determinations

The 403 page 'Administrative Justice and the Supremacy of Law in America' is available from The Christian Jural Society Press in re-copied book form.

---------------v---------------

The Commission on Intergovernmental Affairs, which is still in existence today, was created by Public Law 109, approved July 10, 1953 to investigate National-State-local relationships--the first official undertaking of its kind since the Constitutional Convention in 1789. In this first of its reports, is displayed the reversal of the traditional American idea of government from the bottom, up, to the new form of government which is from the top, down, due to 'financial and military emergencies.'

The New Government

"New administrative undertakings of the (Civil) war and post-war years introduced the National Government permanently into fresh areas of activity. Among these were the first Morrill Act of 1862, which made land grants for agricultural and mechanical colleges in each State; the establishment of a Commissioner (later Secretary) of Agriculture in the same year, and of a Commissioner of Education in 1867; and in 1870 the creation, under the Attorney-General, of a Department of Justice to supervise from Washington the activities of the United States attorneys in the field. More important for the business world was the establishment of a National banking system in 1863. This created for the first time a corps of National bank examiners. In a follow-up move, Congress used the taxing power to oust the States from the field of chartering banks of issue. Soon thereafter there was a uniform currency [under the Federal Reserve Act of 1913]."

The Power of the President

"What those powers were, and which National authority was to be the judge of them were questions not so conclusively settled. Chief Justice Marshall asserted emphatically in 1803 that it was the power and duty of the judiciary to say definitively what the law--including the Constitution--means ["judicial review"], when a question is raised in a proper case. But his successor, Chief Justice Taney, found in the doctrine of "political questions" some limitations on the judicial power to interpret the supreme law. Further limits are inherent in the nature of the process of judicial review over legislation, confined as it is to cases and controversies. Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln expanded the role of the President in ways the Court could not control, ways that sometimes give that office a decisive voice in determining the scope of National power as well as the direction of National policy.Congress has extended the sphere of National action."

The Results

"To many, the expanding powers of the National Government seemed destined to reduce the States to mere administrative provinces. This prospect was sharpened by Supreme Court decisions which appeared to have the effect of removing almost all significant constitutional limitations on the expansion on National activities. It was often aggravated by the conviction that many of the newer activities constituted invasions of individual freedom and ought not to be undertaken by any level of government. Thus the fear of usurpation of States rights was frequently combined with the fear of undue paternalism."

This 311 page full discloser report by the enemy is an important opportunity to study the innerworkings of the beast. It is available from The Christian Jural Society Press in re-copied book form.

Woman: The Unsung Heroine of War

We recently received a call from a Good and Lawful Christian Woman in Hawaii, a Godly mother of two, whose husband had been incarcerated for not fulfilling the "law" of the imperial Caesar. I do not know all the particulars of this Good and Lawful Christian Man's incarceration, and for purposes of this discussion they are not relevant. What is relevant is that this Woman was standing with and supporting her husband in all his Christian labors which should earn her the respect of her local Christian community. Is she not following Scriptural mandates in Genesis and the epistles of Paul? Why then does not the Christian community come forward and take care of the widows, as it should? Is government now to take care of what belongs to Christ? Does the man have to die before his Good and Lawful Christian Wife is pronounced a widow on his death? Surely not. If the man is incarcerated, can he possibly take care of his family while waging war for the Lord? Surely not. He is as good as dead as far as those affairs are concerned. It is the duty of the Christian community to take care of the widows in their times of struggle and need, and because her husband had stood on God's Law, and she had supported him in his Christian labors, she has a right to demand the support of the Christian community. Does not the husband's particular cause concern, edify, exhort, and preserve the church? Does it not concern the common wealth that Good and Lawful Christians be preserved? Does not that which concerns all be supported by all? If the Christian community does nothing, then it shows how dead that community is in relation to Christ.

Husbands, if you believe your wives have no role in this war, you are grossly mistaken. Wives, if you think your husband can go it alone, you will shortly know how wrong you are. Forget "Equal Reprobate Amendments" and the other ilk of the Marxist commercial world. You both belong to Christ, and in His Law He calls you by one name alone, just as He called them Adam in Genesis 5:2. See also Gen. 2:23.

To encourage you brave women who have called and shared your trials and tribulations with us, we are going to begin publishing in the news some stories of some remarkable Christian women who stood with their husbands during the most bloody time in American history--Lincoln v. All Christian states. We are not trying to compare you with these women; and, we do not want you doing that either. We wish merely to show that our Lord is there to light your path with His Word through thick and thin.

We do not want you to think that because you are a woman you are necessarily weak; but, as Good and Lawful Christian Men we feel it is our duty to encourage you in your struggles when you have the feeling of weakness and helplessness, just as you have supported, encouraged, and exhorted your husband in his time of need. We also extend an open invitation to you: One, to fellowship with us; and Two, to write articles of your experiences for publication in the News so you can encourage, exhort, and edify others in the same trenches as yourselves. It is not enough to call yourself a Christian, for as James says, "I will show you my faith by my works."

If there was ever a time for Repentance and healing in America, the time is now; and, the Good and Lawful Christian Women now living hold in their hands a shared destiny with their husbands in passing along to their posterity that fine and extremely rare quality of being a loving Christian Wife standing with and by her husband as he stands in the gate executing the living Testament of Christ by and under which he rules his house in the fear of the Lord; and, a mother to her children, raising them in the admonition of our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ.

For all you Good and Lawful Christian Women who have stood with and by your husbands in the past, we thank you for supporting your husbands, the privilege of your fellowship, the pleasure of meeting some of you and your Godly endurance--for without your exhortations the road is long and hard alone. Is it not written "A house divided against itself cannot stand?"

Next month, our first heroine. Until then, may our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, go with you, comfort you, and Bless you and yours, Amen.

(continued from Issue the Nineteenth)

To begin, we will first examine what it is we are to avoid, and second, how we are to avoid it.

On June 12, 1867, (two years after Lincoln's War had ceased) Attorney General Henry Stanbury made public notice of his opinion on The Reconstruction Acts. That opinion, at 12 Op. Atty. Gen. 182, stated that the Reconstruction Acts are:

"a grant of power to military authority, over civil rights and citizens, in time of peace. It is a new jurisdiction, never granted before, by which, in certain particulars and for certain purposes, the established principle that the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority, is reversed."

Fifty years later William E. Birkheimer, author of 'Military Government and Martial Law' reconfirmed this 'new jurisdiction' through the 'Reconstruction Acts':

"There have been numerous instances in the history of the United States and of particular States of the declaration of martial law. But for completeness of design and efficacy of measures for carrying it into successful execution, nothing could surpass these acts of Congress. They established a military despotism. ....Judging from these acts, the authority of Congress in this regard would seem to be complete. It was attempted in vain to enjoin the carrying this legislative martial law into execution. The Supreme Court refused to interfere. The power and duty conferred and imposed by those acts, it was observed, were purely executive and political in their nature and beyond the sphere of the judicial cognizance. Nor was this system of government wanting the attributes of power, firmness, and, considering the times, justice." Military Government and Martial Law (1917), page 486, by William E. Birkheimer (Major, General Staff, U.S. Army and Acting Judge-Advocate, Department of the Columbia).

And 84 years later, Dean of Harvard Law School, Roscoe Pound, revealed how well this 'new jurisdiction' meshed with 'the new corporate State' and its 'new Marxist philosophy' of law:

"A change from the rational moral political and legal philosophy of the eighteenth century and the ethical idealist political and legal philosophy of the nineteenth century began in the sixth decade of the last century when Marx announced his economic interpretation of history. The ethical idealistic and political idealistic interpretation of political and legal history, dominant in the nineteenth century, began to give way at the end of the century before the conception which Marx propounded in 1859. Where history had been taken to be a record of the unfolding of human experience of the idea of liberty, Marx asserted the unfolding or realizing of an economic idea--the idea of satisfying human wants. For some three decades this interpretation remained unnoticed. It was taken up in 1889, got much vogue in continental Europe in the last decade of the century and came to the United States at the beginning of the present century, where it has had increasing vogue. Out of it has grown what is called 'economic determinism,' a doctrine that all the phenomena of law and government are necessarily and inexorably determined by purely economic causes; that every act of legislation and every exercise of the judicial function is inevitably in the nature of things dictated and shaped by the self-interest of the dominant social and economic class in a society which, by a like necessity, will be class organized until the ultimate doing away with private property. The legal order is a regime of force, the force of a politically organized society, applied at the instance of a socially and economically dominant class upon those whom that class is able to constrain. Thus, law is what ever is done officially in the way of imposing the force of such a society upon those subject thereto. The motivation of imposing of that force is purely economic. Precepts and principles and doctrines and ideals are illusion or superstition or wishful thinking. They are used to cover up results reached independently on a purely economic basis." 'Administrative Law,' by Roscoe Pound (1941), pp. 116-118.

Four years later, Roscoe Pound further explains this 'new jurisdiction':

"Law has another meaning, however, to administrative officials who exercise wide undifferentiated powers of rule making, application of rules, and determination of controversies. To them, law is whatever is done officially, and so administrative law is whatever is done by administrative agencies. What they do is law because they do it. Whereas we had understood that officials should act according to law, but might act without law or even against law, and the common law afforded remedies to those aggrieved by official action without or against law, yet today there are many who teach that the administrative official, as one recent writer put it, has the touch of Midas. What he touches becomes law when he touches it."

"Such ideas come to us chiefly from the modern Roman administrative regime of continental Europe. In the polity of the eastern Roman empire which was set forth in the law books of Justinian, the emperor was free from laws and his will had the force of a statute." Roscoe Pound, Administrative Agencies and the Law, Am. Affairs Pamphlet, April, 1946, p. 5.

And the continuance of the 'new jurisdiction,' new military government, new Constitution and new Marxist nation/State created by A. Lincoln was bluntly expressed by Columbia Law Professor George P. Fletcher in the June 23rd, 1997 issue of 'The New Republic,':

"The 'original republic'--the one for which our 'forefathers' fought 'face to face-hand to hand'- exists only in the minds of academics and fundamentalist patriots. The republic created in 1789 is long gone. It died with the 600,000 Americans killed in the Civil War."
"The new Constitution--the one that shapes and guides the national government and disturbs the new patriots to their core--begins to take hold in the Gettysburg Address, in which Lincoln skips over the original Constitution..... This short speech functions as the Preamble to a new charter that crystallizes after the war in the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
"Nationhood, equality and democracy--these are the ideas that forge the new Constitution. But Lincoln was a good lawyer, and lawyers always seek to camouflage conceptual transformations as the continuous outgrowth of language used in the past. That's why he invoked government "by the people" to capture the new principle of democratic rule. But the significance of the People had changed. They no longer exist as the guarantors of the Constitution, the bestowers of legitimacy. States and individuals can no longer set themselves apart from the nation. The people exist exclusively as voters, as office holders and as beneficiaries of legislation." George P. Fletcher, 'Unsound Constitution,' The New Republic, June 23, 1997, p. 14-18.

The Reconstruction Acts are still in full force and effect today; they have never been repealed. The reason they have never been repealed is because they were created for the financial 'reconstruction' of that new government of conquest known as 'The United States,' which was, and still is, bankrupt. (see 'Admission and Confessions' in Issue the Sixteenth).

The administrative agencies are simply the 'civil affairs' arm 'in the field,' of the military regime, to collect war reparations--by license, not by law.

The Gettysburg Address was a 'war measure,' a ruse de guerre--a deception of war--perpetrated on a Christian country in ruin, by an enemy of Christ.

Mr. Fletcher, lover of the Marxist concepts of 'nationhood,' 'equality' and 'democracy,' is absolutely correct when he says, "They (the people) no longer exist as the guarantors of the Constitution, the bestowers of legitimacy." When you analyze the words he used in his article, you see that the 'new republic' referred to is the result of a military government in conquest exercising legislative martial rule over the conquered 'citizen/resident/voters.'

'Citizenship' under 'The United States' ties you directly to that corporate 'new nation'/'new republic,' with its paper debt, due and payable to the stockholders of the corporation, better known as 'the bondholders' (banks).

All is not lost, however. It all depends on whose reality you choose to live under--the 'Death of Reality' through the fiction known as 'The United States'; or--

'The Way, The Truth and The Life' through The Godhead of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit.

It is important to know that "the State's taxing and regulating authority only extends to those schemes and devices which the State itself created." For example:

"It cannot be doubted that the Legislature can name any privilege a taxable privilege and tax itbut the legislature cannot name something a privilege unless it is first a privilege." Jack Cole Co. v. MacFarland (1960), 206 Tenn. 694, 337 S.W.2d 453, 455-456.

In other words, "Rights cannot be taxed or regulated," but, "If you choose to play with our toys in our sand box, you are also choosing to play by our rules." This is what Mr. Fletcher is referring to when he says, "The people exist exclusively as voters,--as beneficiaries of legislation" [through the new elective franchise].

With all of the above in mind, where do we go from here? The only place a Good and Lawful Christian can go in time of trouble is to The Word of God!!!

Taking into consideration Romans 13:8 "Owe no man anything, but to love one another; for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law,"--I Corinthians 7:23, "Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men,"--and Proverbs 22:7, "The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender;"--

and in relation, Judge Henry Clay Dean's statements in 1868 that,

"debt is the measure of our personal liberty,"

and;

"the feverish prosperity created by artificial wealth, is the natural prelude of general bankruptcy,"

and;

"experience has given to history this one truth, which will never change its force among men; that funded debts and standing armies will enslave a people. These evils are inseparable. A standing army will necessitate a funding debt, to support it; and a funding debt will require a standing army to collect it,"

--it must be said then, that the avoidance of debt is the primary source for the avoidance of the trap known as 'benefits, privileges and opportunities' acquired from the current de facto governments and their administrative agencies, and the resulting pains and penalties created thereby. (see 'Minimum Contacts' in Issue the Seventeenth).

For when a 'personal' debt is taken on, you become merged with the bankrupt 'person' known as 'The United States.' That 'bankrupt person' is continually looking for new ways to bind you as 'surety for the principal debtor,' and uses ways already in place to do the same, such as 'The National Banking Acts,' 'The Reconstruction Acts,' 'The Civil Rights Acts,' 'The 13th-27th Amendments,' 'The Homestead Acts,' 'The 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended in 1933,' 'The Motor Vehicle Acts,' etc., etc., etc., ad nauseam.

Those 'personal debts,' and 'benefits, privileges, and opportunities,' which become 'minimum contacts,' (creating the bond between you and the State debt) that are to be avoided, are:

Voter registration.

'Free delivery' of mail to your home,

Post Office Box or business.

Bank Accounts and Loans.

Use of a Social Security number.

Government or Corporate Employment.

Insurance Policies.

Drivers License or any other license, or

government issued I.D.

Automobile Registration.

Property Registration.

Court Appearance.

All or any one of the 'minimum contacts' above, and many others, establish you as a 'resident' and a belligerent 'in the field,' subject to the 'military authority.'

Residency is all important in this 'novation' scheme, for it brings you within their political bounds and makes you 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'

In addition, all of the 'minimum contacts' above, and many others, are 'commercial' in nature. That commercial nature is what makes you their 'belligerent in the field' and binds you to the debt.

It is 'presumed' by the imperial powers that you are within their political jurisdiction. But all 'presumptions' are 'rebuttable,' if you can evidence that you are not the 'person' they presume you are.

A presumption cannot be rebutted if you have the political ties to the government, such as license, insurance, free mail delivery, voter registration, etc.

The reason it cannot be rebutted concerns the maxim of law, 'no man can serve two masters.' In other words, "if you look to us for your rights, or for a privilege to do an act, we are your absolute master; you belong to us and you will do as we say." It is important to note here that a 'benefit' or 'privilege' is a 'gain' that is always received from a 'superior.' In other words, "he who was a public servant or minister before, becomes the superior." For example, the Fourteenth Amendment's protection clause of 'the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States,' makes the State the master or superior of those who claim to be 'a citizen of the United States.'

With all of the above in mind and a thorough understanding of the information contained in the other Christian Jural Society News articles mentioned, one can proceed on a solid tack to 'Exercise Your Right of Avoidance.' 'A sincere desire,' lacking the knowledge and understanding necessary to perform the task will not do. The commitment of learning how to 'come out of her' must be there. It's a task that will not be overcome, overnight. It's a matter of setting particular goals and sticking to those goals. There is much sacrifice involved, but if it is written on your heart to do so, it will be a Blessing.

The following shows the implications of three major 'minimum contacts' and suggestions for avoiding them through alternative means:

Voter Registration

(Please read "Admissions and Confessions' in Issue the Fourteenth as a supplement to this section.)

"Congress was not satisfied with the organic law or constitution under which this civil government was established. That constitution was to be changed in only one particular to make it acceptable to Congress, and that was in the matter of the elective franchise. The purpose, the sole object of this act (Reconstruction Act), is to effect that change, and to effect it by the agency of the State, or such of them that are made voters by means of elections provided for in the act, and in the mean time to preserve order and to punish offenders, if found necessary, by military commissions." 12 Op. Atty. Gen. 182.

Vote. A 'voter' is an elector who votes--an elector in the exercise of his franchise or privilege of voting. People vs. Pease, 27 N.Y. 57, (1863).

Voter. Its meaning depends on the connections in which it is used, and is not always equivalent to elector. In a limited sense a voter is a person having the legal right to vote, sometimes called a legal voter. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition (1990), page 1576.

Legal Voter. A person meeting constitutional requirements and who is registered. A person invested by law with right to vote. A person qualified by U.S. Constitution and laws of state to vote. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition (1990), page 897.

Person. Scope and delineation of term is necessary for determining those to whom Fourteenth Amendment of Constitution affords protection since this Amendment expressly applies to "person." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition (1990), page 1142.

For those who no longer wish to be a militarily franchised 14th Amendment 'person,' possessing 'civil rights' and not Rights granted by God, a Sample Voter Registration Cancellation Letter can be found on page 166 in the new Third Edition of 'The Book of the Hundreds."

For those that believe that they can change things at the polls, think about this--All of the 'laws' passed and debts accumulated since the 'new jurisdiction' was created are all war measures. War measures only have force and effect so long as the war continues. If those world powers that control the current form of government here, were to allow a change in that form, it would end the debt and the despotism. This is the reason why the Reconstruction Acts are still in place, why 'the permanent state of national emergency' (which is equivalent to 'a state of war') continues and why new 'wars' are continually created and maintained, i.e., 'the war on drugs,' 'the war on gangs,' 'the war on poverty,' 'the war on illiteracy,' 'the war on cancer,' etc., etc. Therefore, the 'war' rages on, in spite of the 'privileged' voters.

Free Delivery of Mail

"On July 1st, 1863, free city delivery service was instituted (war measure) .....the one test in changes in routes must be: 'Will the service be as good or better than formerly?' The test of self-support should not determine the future of this facility which brings benefit to every citizen of the United States, whether he lives in city or country.
It is the highway of service, designed by a democracy with faith for a social institution of vital importance in a people's nation....it is the democratic instrument of a democracy." United States Postal Policy (1931), pp. 114 & 118, by Clyde Kelly (Member of Congress, Member of Post Office and Post Roads Committee, House of Rep., Author of 'Postal Legislation').

For those who no longer wish to be one of Mr. Kelly's and Mr. Fletcher's Marxist 'instrument of democracy in a people's nation' and one of its Fourteenth Amendment citizens receiving its benefits through 'free delivery' of mail, you must receive your mail in general delivery. A 'general delivery package' is available from The Christian Jural Society Press. It includes a 90 minute audio tape with accompanying paperwork and instruction.

In accordance with general delivery, you must remove the street numbers and mail box from your house. Street numbers and mail boxes were a voluntary act brought about in 1863 so that the mailman would know where to deliver the mail and have a place to deposit it. The call was, "If you want the convenience (benefit) of having your mail delivered to your home so that you won't have to go to the post office to pick it up, you will need to supply numbers and a mailbox for that purpose."

The numbers and mailbox (and P.O. Box) have now been extended for 'service of process' by all governmental agencies, for the numbered house is the fictional commercial designator, 'in the field,' needed by those agencies to connect you with their system. Removal of the numbers from the house has been very successful for many in holding off the imperial powers, by not giving them the fiction they need.

Bank Accounts and Loans

The connection between banking, loans, commercial instruments, etc., and The Law Merchant are so overwhelming, that it will suffice to say that God makes it quite clear in Scripture about merchants, when speaking of Ephraim:

"He is a merchant, the balances of deceit are in his hand: he loveth to oppress." Hosea 12:7
"Ephraim feedeth on wind, and followeth after the east wind: he daily increaseth lies and desolation; and they do make a covenant with the Assyrians, and oil is carried into Egypt." Hos 12:1

In 1868, Judge Henry Clay Dean made it quite clear that the usurious bankers and their banks, and the de facto government, were to be avoided like the plague:

"The national banks are a glaring fraud, to which the Government has made itself a criminal party in oppressing the people."

"The bankers, brokers, extortioners, usurers, and stock-gamblers, united in conspiracy with public officers in immediate proximity to the Treasury and revenue, to deprecate the profligate redundancy of the currency, immediately went to work to buy up the outstanding notes which were drawing no interest and were serving the purposes of a circulating medium as well as any other mere paper currency could do, which promised no coin as a basis of redemption, and much better than any substitute which was not a legal tender in the payment of debts." Crimes of the Civil War & Curse of the Funding System, p. 383

These banks promoted and financed a war on Christendom in the same manner as the buyers, sellers, and money-changers had turned God's House into a den of thieves in Christ's Day. Christ drove them from the Temple -- Too many today honor them by turning their savings over to them to support and promote their usury.

Believing that the possessions God has graced you with would be safer in the 'hands of the oppressor,' than under the protection of God, is to put 'the deceiver' between you and God and to say that God is not sufficient.

The bankers and money-changers of today are the same as those of Christ's Day and of the 1800's, only with different names and different faces. To use a bank or to take out loans is to contribute to the 'lies and desolation' and the perpetuation of the beast. Until the 'den of thieves' are made to 'wail and knash their teeth,' the 'lies and desolation' will continue.

Next month, we will examine the difficult alternatives to the driver's licence, automobile registration and court appearance issues.

Civil Rights:

The Road to Serfdom!

(continued from Issue the Sixteenth)

As we have seen from previous articles on this topic, Civil Rights are presumed by all military governments and their officers and agents in America, to apply to everyone within the borders of the States and Possessions of the Federal government.

It is this question of presumption and its nature as treated in the Codes that we want to focus on here, because prior to Lincoln's War, the nature of presumption was entirely different than it is today.

Before Lincoln's War, no officer could presume he had jurisdiction in any matter or event, unless the act were criminal and it happened in his presence. In all other matters, the officer had to prove certain factors - before a warrant could issue and an arrest could be made.

Thus, an officer may suspect that such and such was the case, but until he had investigated the matter and collected sufficient evidence to convince a judge to sign his warrant, no arrest could be made.

Today, all people that come within the purview of any officer with powers of arrest, are presumed to be arrestable without warrant. All the officer has to have is 'probably cause' that someone may have done something wrong and he can affect an arrest. Later, he can gather the evidence he needs to bring the person before the judge.

Thus, in a traffic stop, the officer has made an arrest the instant he turns on his red light. The purpose of the discussion he has with a man or woman behind the wheel after he has stopped them is merely to gather more evidence and the information he needs to fill out his citation. All of which takes place under the threat of a gun.

In other words, the officer presumes that one is already guilty of some traffic 'infraction' (a military term) but he needs the admissions and confessions of the alleged 'driver' to complete his act of revenue collection and further, he may, and likely will, find further infractions that he can add to the original charge.

One may be stopped for not wearing his seat belt, but the officer may also find that one's registration has lapsed or that one has no insurance on the car.

Was the whole seat belt issue created for revenue purposes? Perhaps. The fact is, the lack of seat belts merely provides the 'excuse' for the stop and the traffic citation. Revenues from traffic stops have increased a great deal because of it.

This is the benefit - to the Federal government - of Civil Rights and the reason for their creation.

The problem is, for everyone in the law reform movement, how do we deal with this enormous injustice based upon the presumption of officers?

First, the answer is, in the general sense, found in Christ, and in a specific sense, in one's knowledge of Scripture. For the ultimate presumption of the officer is, that one is not acting in the mode and character of a Christian.

In other words, the officer's first presumption is that the person he has stopped is a pagan. And, unless the person stopped has given clear evidence to the contrary - before the stop was made - the officer must presume that such a person is a pagan and treat him accordingly.

To be blunt about it, every Christian who drives a so-called vehicle is presumed to be acting in the mode and character of a pagan, i.e., in commerce, because he has borne or given no evidence to the contrary.

Is this not bearing false witness?

In other words, when a man professes to be a Christian and yet acts in a manner that tells the whole world that he is a pagan, the Christian is bearing false witness to the whole world. Can the officer be blamed for writing his traffic ticket in such a case? Obviously, not!

Yet, there are thousands of 'patriots' out there who insist that they are Christians and live under God-given Rights, but they act as if they were pagans by filing Title 42 suits against arresting officers and the courts, and assert that "my rights have been violated!!!"

Is it not evident that such suits are a further contradiction and a greater false witness to the world, because such suits are only for 'persons' who come under the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and its subsequent amendments,--not Christians.

The point is, a growing number of Christians are long on profession and short on practice. They profess to be Christians, but in fact, they act like pagans in all they do. They honor God with their lips but their heart is far from Him.

Do they want to repent? Apparently not. The more important question is, will they repent? Again, not likely, at least as long as they are so comfortable in the civil rights womb of imperial government.

They want their bank accounts, but don't want to be held to account for dealing in 'commercial instruments' under the commercial banking laws.

They want the comfort and convenience of free home delivery of their mail, but refuse to consider themselves as residents and citizens of the United States, which they are when they receive such 'benefit.'

They want all their so-called Constitutional Rights when there isn't anything available but Civil Rights through the 14th Amendment, but they will not study to show themselves approved.

They want the convenience of driving on Federal military highways in a lawless manner, i.e., disturbing the peace by speeding, running red lights, etc., or trafficking in commerce to the General Public, but don't want to pay the fiddler and accept his license, registration, and motor vehicle code, the purpose of which is to control such lawlessness.

They want all the rights, privileges, and immunities of God's Law but they will not form Christian Jural Societies with Christian courts that can defend their true liberties, because "it's too much work and takes too much time away from the pleasures of life."

Thus, these 'Christians' are a lawless breed of pagans, lacking the ethics and morals required to honor the God that gave and continues to give them life.

They will probably continue down the road they are on and the pain level will grow, until there is a change in the heart. The Christian discernment must be there for this change to take place.

The one true Blessing in all of this is that there are also a growing number of Christian workmen that are not ashamed of their calling, 'studying to show themselves approved unto God,' and they are 'rightly dividing the word of truth.'

This they do to honor their only Master who is The Way, The Truth and The Life; Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

Miscellaneous Notes

From the 1961 World Book Encyclopedia, page 89, 'fiat money' is defined as:

Fiat Money

"Currency issued by a government without any gold or silver reserves behind it. The Latin word fiat means literally 'let it be.' Although fiat money has no real value, the government has said, 'Let it be money.' It holds its face value as long as people have confidence in the government. Some modern currencies resemble fiat money because they cannot be redeemed in gold. Issuing fiat money does not solve problems of money scarcity and cannot produce confidence."

Parent

From the same source as above, page 135, parent is defined, in part, as follows:

"The law no longer considers children the property of their parents. Today the welfare of the child is considered as important as the legal right of his parents to control him.
Some of this change in thought came about early enough to be expressed in the English common law, which is part of the legal structure of both Canada and the United States.
A person who takes over the duties of a parent, either temporarily or permanent, is said by the law to be in loco parentis (in place of the parent). Teachers and guardians act in loco parentis."

Scripture and the Law Merchant

Part Three

by John Quade

The point of the analysis of the law of the merchant that was done in previous Issues of the News was to show that not one verse in the Bible supports the idea of Christians being engaged in commerce. Further, it is also clear that when God's judgment falls on the earth, whether local or world-wide, the merchants and those who depend on the merchants will suffer great loss and severe pain.

This being the case, why would any Christian want to stay in commerce? The answer is, because they do not take God's Word seriously. Even when it is pointed out time and again that Scripture opposes such practice, they will first look to find some way around the clear meaning of the Bible, rather than repent of their sins. For, in the final analysis, the current life of most Christians is just far too comfortable, convenient, and makes the good life easy. This is the real reason why they do not want to repent.

Of course, many will say that it makes no difference because the Lord is coming back next Wednesday at 12:15 (or 12:28, depending on which Evangelist you listen to) and meanwhile their own communities continue to disintegrate along with the rest of the world.

I remember once that Hal Lindsay, the great Evangelical 'prophet of rapture fever, scare and share' theology, once said at the Light and Power House in West Los Angeles that: "If I'm still here in ten years, then everything I've said is a lie." That statement was made in 1970 and Hal Lindsay is still here, twenty-seven years later!!!

But what is so remarkable about the Christian apathy towards that type of theology and commerce today is, they supposedly read the Bible every day and do not see that precisely the same events that happened to Christ, the Apostles, and hundreds of thousands of other Christians in the first three centuries of the church, is happening today--all around them. Christians should know and understand Roman history better than the secular world and recognize its sins when they see them. But, they don't and could really care less.

Too many of the Christian public are like the man who stands in the middle of a ten story building and watches it crumble in a 9.5 earthquake rather than get out of it. No, this man is rejoicing because his pastor tells him that before a single brick hits him on the head, the Lord will snatch him out and take him to safety. Of course, the pastor yells these words through an open window from outside the building.

Christians in their 501(c)3 churches condemn the world everyday on national television but they would never admit that they are themselves responsible for the corruption in the land. After all, "the quicker the world goes into the toilet, the quicker the Lord comes back." And, if one is going to be raptured off the earth next week, there isn't time to do anything. No, the best we can do is evangelize and get more to join our 501(c)3 commercial corporations and wait with the rest of the twits for the Lord to come back next week. They all have their guaranteed fire and life insurance policy that says that, "We're going to heaven--why worry about it?"

There is a maxim that says; he who fails to protect another from clear and present danger when a word will prevent the crime, is guilty of the crime himself. Scripture says; "Thou shalt not put a stumbling block before the blind" (Lev. 19:14) Can you continue to look the other way and watch millions of people stumble and fall and be cast on the rocks of commercialism.

Scripture prohibits one Christian from suing another and yet daily, Christians take each other to court, going before the ungodly, but they will not take the time and trouble to form their own courts. Very well, suffer the consequences predicted by Judge Henry Clay Dean over one hundred and thirty years ago:

"In the court, the Judge is overawed with social proscription or sweetened with presents which could not be taken by an honest judiciary, or be given in evidence as bribes.
Like courts, like juries, misdirected by judges and overawed or corrupted by capital, or failing in this, attorneys are bought up, witnesses are intimidated or corrupted, until the slave suitor gladly abandons his claim and leaves the court in disgust. The failure of one discourages the rest, and capital as thoroughly subdues the contestant, as the master would subjugate his slave by the bludgeon or cat o' nine tails."

Every court in America is utterly corrupted, like the whited sepulchre that is beautiful on the outside and full of the blood of corruption on the inside.

Few Christians today tremble at the thought of God's judgment because they have turned Him into a pure God of Love. If God wouldn't stay his hand when it came to judging the Jews, why should he stay his hand against those modern Christians who are utterly committed to the judaismus ways of commercial law???

We have tried Our best at The News to clear the road of stones so the blind could walk without stumbling and we have made a total commitment to helping Fellow- Christians learn how to live life according to God's Law. We don't have all of the answers, but what we do know, we publish. We will continue this effort for as long as we can, but the final Word on that is not in Our hands to control, but in God's hands.

Just as your successful efforts depend on enough Christian support in your community, so it is with The News.

The Law of Nature vs. God's Law

A Law Review by Frederick Pollack

The following is Part Two by noted jurist Frederick Pollack continued from Issue the Seventeenth on the subject of God's Law vs. The Law of Nature, from the Columbia Law Review, Volume II, March 1902. It contains an excellent display of the 'autonomous reasoning' of the humanist mind, and the quandaries of that mindset created by casting God's Word behind.

It also shows why it is so important to qualify which Common Law/common law you are speaking of, i.e.--Christian common law, Commercial Common Law, English Common Law, etc.--for they each represent opposing customs & usages.

...We must either admit that modern International Law is law founded on cosmopolitan principles of reason, a true living offshoot of the Law of Nature, or ignore our own most authoritative expositions of it. In fact, these utterances have been utterly ignored, so far as I know, by English publicists of the extreme insular school.

All of which indicates that Austin had little acquaintance with evolutionary and comparative ethics. [I do not remember to have seen anywhere the argument against God-given ethics that if that is their true source we might reasonably have expected that we should also have been supplied with infallible ideas as to the varying degrees of "pravity" involved in the various acts of misconduct. But our judgment as to the degrees are most helplessly human. "A theocracy brands blasphemy and idolatry as crimes deserving of death, while it looks upon a boundary violation as a simple misdemeanor (Mosaic law). The Agricultural State, on the other hand, visits the latter with the severest punishment, while it lets the blasphemer go with the lightest punishment (Old Roman law). The Commercial State punishes most severely the uttering of false coin; the Military State, insubordinates and breach of official duty; the Absolute State, high treason; the Republic, the striving after regal power." Ihering's The Struggles for Law, 45. See also Lecky's Hist. of European Morals, VII; Muirhead's Elements of Ethics, 193.]

Later writers have found no difficulty in declaring that this Divine Law "is merely our old friend the Law of Nature in very transparent disguise." [Lightwood's The Nature of Positive Law, 19] And so it is.

Since Sir Henry Maine and the other writers above noted, no one can be excused for disbelief in "the Historical Method before which the Law of Nature has never maintained its footing for an instant. [Ancient Law, 86-7.]" The early English Common Law lawyers used the phrase the "Law of Reason [Bryce's Studies in Hist. And Jur. 600.]" in a sense much equivalent to the Law of Nature. They would say "that such and such a rule is grounded in reason"; just as now and then our own judges will say that their view is in accordance with "the elementary principles of justice." Locke speaks of the "Law of Nature, which is the same thing as the Law of Reason [On Govt. Bk. II. c. 8; and see, c. 2.]" and of "the Law of Nature - that is, the will of God. [Ibid., Bk. II, c. 11.]" Hobbes refers to the "Law of Nature-that is to say, common equity" [Leviathon, 127.] - such laws being "contained in this one sentence, Do not that to another which thou thinkest unreasonable to be done by another to thyself." [Ibid., 126. Cf. Justinian's Inst. Lib. 1, Tit. 1] With the Stoics, "Live according to Nature" really meant "Live according to Reason." [Pollock's essays Jur. And Ethics, 334.]

Turning now to the "Law of Nations," let us see whether it presents any more solid substantiality? Do not take the phrase to mean the Law between Nations. But if you do, observe that international law is based upon notions of rules which ought to guide and control international action ; and that these notions are but by slow degrees emerging into formulas and definitions, ["International law may be defined to be the aggregate of rules regulating the intercourse of states which have been gradually evolved out of the moral and intellectual convictions of the civilized world as the necessity for their existence has been demonstrated by experience." Hannis Taylor on Internat. Pub. Law, 86;] without which you may talk about laws but have none. [Except in crudest condition and regulative of simplest transactions.]

The Law of Nations was known, to the Romans as the Jus Gentium. It was presumed to be "the sum of the common ingredient in the custom of the old Italian tribes." [Maine's Ancient Law, 49]

But in reality it was nothing more or less than a very transparent device by which the Romans improved their own Jus Civile - brought it down (or up) to date.

"Institutions are the products of the past process, are adapted to past circumstances, and are therefore never in full accord with the requirements of the present." [ Weblins The Theory of the Leisure Class, 191.]

More than that, secular man progresses, but his institutions, his systems of law (and other things) harden and cake around him, and must be got rid of by explosion or subtle infusion. And the development of the law is a history of cake and infusion.

This Jus Gentium was a stroke worthy of the Roman genius. (Very like our English Equity, as we shall see.) There was to the Romans a distinction between the civil law (that is the peculiar law of any particular State), and those laws which were to be found in every State. One evidently was merely conventional, and the other was derivable from the nature of things. Not that the Roman lawyers had in reality collocated the foreign laws, and having scored out all discrepants, had produced an anthology of synoptics. No, this distinction between local and universal law was not one of ascertained existence; it was nothing but the difference between the Roman law as it was, and the Roman law which more enlightenment declared it ought to be. And the assertion of a law common to all nations ["The Law of Nations is common to all (secular) mankind": Justinian's Inst. Lib. 1. Tit. 2, s. 2.] was nothing but a particularly happy method by which the law was brought into harmony with current notions of justice [Mr. James Bryce tells us that the Roman magistrates proceeded "by taking those general principles of justice, fair dealing, and common sense, which they found recognized by other peoples as well as their own," ("If indeed we are to suppose that the Praetors ever really did study the laws of the various neighbors of Rome," p.619); "and by giving effect to those mercantile and other similar usages which they found prevailing among the strangers resident in Rome. Thus by degrees they built up a body of rules. * * * which, while it resembled their own system in many of its general features, was less technical and more consonant to the practical convenience and general understanding of mankind." Studies in Hist. and Jur. 571-2.].

The first excuse for departure from the Jus Civile was found in cases in which a foreigner was a party. Romans (not usually superfluously deferential to foreigners) assumed that in such cases it would not be fair to apply their own law and so they consulted all other laws (really consulted their own ideas of equity), and gave judgment accordingly. Principles thus adopted very soon affected the whole body of the civil law of Rome, and finished by complete amalgamation with it, and much improvement of it. (Very like our English Equity history.)

The Law of Nations had precisely the same basis, and solidity or frailty as the Law of Nature - "the rules of conduct deducible by reason from the general conditions of human society"; "the ideal to which actual law and custom could only approximate";[Ante, p. 142.] [ the ideal to which, in spite of caking, we have always determined that they shall so far as possible approximate. The history of these laws being closed, we can now see that "the Law of Nature is simply the Law of Nations seen in the light of a peculiar theory, * * * the expressions were practically convertible"; [Maine's Ancient Law, p. 57. And see Hannis Taylor's article in 175 North Am. Rev. 465; and Bryce's Studies in Hist. And Jur. 581. The identity of the laws was adopted by Grotius.] and that the Jus Gentium was merely Praetorian Law (upon the pretence of being law common to all nations), even as so much of our own law is judge law, upon pretence of being law common to all England -- with this difference: that the Praetors avowed their law-making proclivities, [See Justinian's Inst. 1, tit. 2, s. 7; Lib. III, tit. 13. s. 1] while our judges are supposed to find laws in the bulrushes or some other improbable place. [See Maine's Ancient Law, 32, 33.]

And what are we to say of the Common Law? Surely there was a Common Law somewhere? Have we not Common Law courts, and Common Law books, and Common Law at the very basis of our American and English and Canadian law? Yes, yes; but what was it? and where did it come from? is it here yet? or has it vanished? and did anybody ever see it? or is it mere space with judge law filling? Do not let us imagine at any rate that there is some old book somewhere in which the Common Law is written down.

And do not let us think that "the Common Law of England," about which we hear so much, is the only or the first Common Law, or that it has anything very peculiar about it. Upon the contrary, away back among the Greeks 'Aristotle divides law into that which is Common, being in accordance with nature and admitted by all men," (our old friend Law of Nature) "and that which is peculiar, settled by each community for itself." [Bryce's Studies in Hist. And Jur., 567.] and Demosthenes refers to the "Common Law of all man-kind." [Ibid., p. 568.] Justinian too declares that "Every community, governed by laws and customs, uses partly its own law and partly laws common to all mankind (Communi omnium Aominum)." [Institutes, Lib. 1, Tit. 2, s. 1.] And the Stoics identified the Law of Nature or the Common (Universal) Law with the Divine reason.[Bryce's Studies, 568.]

The Common Law then is not a code, or a body of law, or an anthology of synoptics. It is precisely the same thing as the Law of Nature and the Law of Nations [The Law of Nations is Common to all mankind": Justinian's Institutes, Lib. I, Tit. 2, s. 2.] - the vague, undefinable ideal to which we feel that we are stumblingly approaching; guided by reason into the right road, some say; cuffed by failures out of the wrong, think I.

Lord Esher pretty well unmasked this glorified unreality, the Common Law, when he said that, "The duty of the Judge is to find out what is the rule which people of candor and honor and fairness in the position of the two parties would apply in respect to the matter in hand. That is the Common Law of England." [Speech, 15 Nov., 1897.]

Professor Thayer (whose death was a great loss) said that "the exercise of their (the judges) never questioned jurisdiction of declaring the Common Law * * * has consisted in a great degree in declaring the scope and operation of sound reason, wherein the Common Law so largely consists." [Evidence at the Common Law, 207-8. Prof. Thayer speaks of 'the Common Law system of Evidence." But of course he does not mean the common custom of all England as to evidence. He says "We have generated and evolved this large, elaborate and difficult doctrine. We have done it not by direct legislation, but almost wholly by the slowly accumulated rulings of judges made in the trying of cases during the last two or three centuries. (p. 2; & see 207-8).]

Lord Bowen declared that the Common Law is an "arsenal of common-sense principles." And Maine if asked for a rough definition would say that "Law is common sense."[Village Communities, 258.]

This Common Law of England is the most impudent pretender of all these phantom laws. For unquestionably a very large part of it was not law of England at all (common or special) but simply Roman law, smuggled in by Bracton [Maine's Ancient Law, 82], openly introduced by Holt, [Law of Bailments in Coggs v. Bernard (1703), Ld. Raymond, 909.] consciously and unconsciously adopted by many others. And perhaps the idea that the Common Law of England was "the law of the royal court," as opposed to the local laws of the old seigniorial courts - a sort of jus gentium imposed by a Praetor Peregrinus - is the real meaning of the term. [Jenk's Law 3 & Pol. Of the Middle Ages, 35-6.] Maine thinks that by its earliest expositors "it was regarded as existing somewhere in the form of a symmetrical body of express rules, adjusted to definite principles. The knowledge of the system however in its full amplitude and proportions was supposed to be confined to the breasts of the judges; and the lay public and the mass of the legal profession were only permitted to discern its canons intertwined with the facts of the adjudged cases. Many traces of this ancient theory remain in the language of our judgments and forensic arguments." [Village Communities, 335.]

Equity has never had such a concrete look as this Common Law (the adjective of which might have kept us right if we had not forgotten its significance). Equity, we admit, is an unwritten and inexpressible aspiration. But have you observed (as hinted at above) that as the Roman Civil law, built of common sense, became caked and afterwards yielded to a new infusion of more common sense (insidiously introduced under the name of the Law of Nations); so the Common Law of England, builded of reason and caked by custom (precedents and forms) [ Bryce's Studies in Hist. & Jur. 697.], succumbed to more reason through the fiction of the King's conscience ["It is the special business of Equity to reintroduce those considerations which have been dropped in arriving at the rules of law," Lightwood's The Nature of Positive law, 40; and see p. 300.]

'State of War', Flagrant War--Flagrante Bello, Non-Flagrant War-- Non Flagrante Bello

"War was continued in those States until the President's [Johnson] proclamation of August 20, 1866, proclaimed 'the insurrection at an end.' A 'state of war' continued beyond this time, more or less extensive in its theater--'non flagrante bello sed nondum cessante bello.' [Mrs. Alexander's Cotton, 2 Wall. 419.]

"A state of war does not cease with actual hostilities. 'Military government may legally be continued bello nondum cessante [non ceasing war-non flagrante bello], as well as flagrante bello.'It is easier to provoke a civil war than to restore the confidence without which peace returns but by name. Under these circumstances the reasons which justify martial law subsist.' [Hare's Constitutional Law, p. 938].

"The existence of what is called 'a state of war' after flagrant war has ceased is recognized on the same principle as the personal right of self-defense. This is not limited to the right to repel an attack; but so long as the purpose of renewing it remains --the animus revertendi--so long as the danger is imminent or probable, the party assailed [the bondholder or his debtor] may employ reasonable force against his adversary to disarm and disable him until the danger is past [non flagrante bello], and in doing this and judging of its necessity precise accuracy as to the means is not required, but only the exercise of reasonable judgment in view of the circumstances. [1 Bish.Crim.Law, (5th ed.) secs. 301, 305, 838, and numerous authorities cited. See Stewart v. State, 1 OhioSt.Rep. 66-71.]

"If after the forces under the command of Lee surrendered in April, 1865, the United States forces had been immediately withdrawn, the rebellion would possibly have resumed its hostile purposes.

"It was upon this theory, coupled with the constitutional duty of Congress to 'guarantee to each State a republican form of government,' [a ruse] that the reconstruction acts were passed, and military as well as civil measures adopted in pursuance of them." Report No. 262, House of Representatives, 43d Congress, 1st Session, March 26, 1874. [Emphasis and insertions added.]

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

Invitation to the Tempted and Backslider

Yes, O, Christian, whoever you are, however tempted and distressed; however languishing and despairing you may be, the Master is come and calleth for thee. He does, as it were, call thee by name, for He knows the name of His sheep, they are engraven on the palms of His hands, and He cannot forget them. His language is, "Where is this, and that, and the other one of my flock, who used to watch for the tokens of my approach and come at the sound of my voice? Why do they not come to welcome my return, and rejoice in my presence? Have they backslidden and wandered from my fold? Go and tell them that their High Priest and Intercessor, one who has been tempted in all points as they are, and therefore can be touched with the feeling of their infirmities, is come, and calleth for them to spread their temptations and afflictions before Him. Are they born down with a load of guilt, and the weight of their sins against me, so that they are ashamed to look me in the face? Tell them that I will receive them graciously, and love them freely. Are they carried away by their spiritual enemies, and bound in the fetters of vice, so that they cannot come to welcome me? Tell them that I am come to proclaim deliverance to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to rescue the lambs of my flock from the paw of the lion, and the jaws of the bear. Are they oppressed by fears that they shall one day perish by the hand of their enemies? Go and tell them that my sheep never perish, and that none shall finally pluck them out of my hand. Are they slumbering and sleeping, insensible of my approach? Go, and awaken them with the cry, 'Behold the Bridegroom cometh, go ye out to meet Him.'"

The Sins of our Youth

Two aged disciples, one eighty-seven years old, one day met. "Well," inquired the younger to his fellow-pilgram, "how long have you been interested in religion?" "Fifty years," was the old man's reply. "Well, have you ever regretted that you began so young to devote yourself to religion?" "O no," said he; and the tears trickled down his furrowed cheeks. "I weep when I think of the sins of my youth. It is this that makes me weep now."

Another man of eighty, who had been a Christian fifty or sixty years, was asked if he was grieved that he had become a disciple of Christ. "O no," said he, "If I grieve for any thing, it is that I did not become a Christian before."

We visited a woman of ninety, as she lay on her last bed of sickness. She had been hoping in Christ a half century. In the course of conversation she said, "Tell all the children, that an old woman, who is just on the border of eternity is very much grieved that she did not begin to love the Savior when she was a child. Tell them, 'youth is the time to serve the Lord.'"

Said an old man of seventy-six, "I did not become interested in religion, till I was forty-five; and I have often to tell God, I have nothing to bring Him but the dregs of old age."

Said another man, between sixty and seventy years of age, "I hope I became a disciple of the Lord Jesus, when I was seventeen;" and he burst into a flood of tears as he added, "and there is nothing that causes me so much distress as to think of those seventeen years--some of the very best portion of my life--which I devoted to sin and the world."

And the penitent, broken hearted David, as he looked back and thought of his early days, exclaimed, "Remember not, O Lord, the sins of my youth."

Issue the Twenty-first

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Civil Rights, Lawyers, and Abortion, Part one...

Land by Inheritance...

Obscure Fallacies of American Politics...

Exercising Your Right of Avoidance, Part three...

Woman: The Unsung Heroine of War, Part Two...

Aaron's Golden Calf...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Civil Rights, Lawyers, and Abortion

It was Christians who opposed abortion in ancient Rome. They made a nuisance of themselves by recovering aborted babies from the trash dumps of Rome, where they were cast, still alive, by the Roman garbage collectors. The Roman Imperial Government took this form of Christian work very seriously and, at one point, passed a law against Christians recovering babies. The Christians ignored the law because it was contrary to God's Law.

The law was passed because, even though abortion was illegal in Rome, the practice was nevertheless widespread, especially among the Roman upper class. Thus, while Rome said one thing, everyone, including the common people, knew the opposite was taking place. Rome justified its law by asserting that Christians used live babies in sacrificial rites. But the

Roman people knew better; they knew Christians recovered the babies to raise them as Christians. Thus, Rome suffered great embarrassment over this law as the Roman common people made jokes about it and one year later, the law was repealed.

For modern Christians, the circumstances around abortion appear to be entirely different. We disagree with this view and, in part, this essay's purpose is to explain why.

In fact, Christians today are dealing with the same old Roman Imperial law that Christians in ancient Rome dealt with. The one difference: Christians of ancient Rome knew they were dealing with a system of law that was contrary to God's Law.

The modern Christians do not yet know that 20th Century America has rejected its original Christian system of Law and re-adopted the old Roman system.

"The crisis of the Western legal tradition is not merely a crisis in legal philosophy, but also a crisis in law itself. Legal philosophers have always debated, and presumably will debate, whether law is founded in reason and morality or whether it is only the will of the political ruler. It is not necessary to resolve that debate in order to conclude that as a matter of historical fact the legal systems of all the nations that are heirs to the Western legal tradition have been rooted in certain beliefs or postulates: that is, the legal systems themselves have presupposed the validity of those beliefs. Today those beliefs or postulates are rapidly disappearing; its religious roots, its transcendent qualities are rapidly disappearing, not only from the minds of philosophers, not only from the minds of lawmakers, judges, lawyers, law teachers, and other members of the legal profession, but from the consciousness of the vast majority of citizens, the people as a whole; and more than that, they are disappearing from the law itself. The law is becoming more fragmented, more subjective, geared more to expediency and less to morality, concerned more with immediate consequences and less with consistency or continuity. Thus the historical soil of the Western legal tradition is being washed away in the twentieth century, and the tradition itself is threatened with collapse."
"With the transfer of the principal lawmaking and law enforcing functions to the sole jurisdictions of the national state, the foundation was laid for the separation of jurisprudence from theology and ultimately for the complete secularization of legal thought. This did not occur at once, since the predominant system of beliefs throughout the West remained Christian. It is only in the twentieth century that the Christian foundations of Western law have been almost totally rejected. Berman, Law and Revolution (1983), p. 39.

This vital factor is the key to understanding why the modern pro-life movement has failed in its attempts to abolish abortion.

Thus, the form and content, if any, of law has dramatically changed and made it impossible for the Christian agenda to get a hearing as a brief overview of the Christian attempts to abolish the heinous and brutal scheme of baby murder, will show. Today's policy is mere expediency, the same tactic that put Christ on the Cross. As then, so also now, real law had nothing to do with it.

The pro-life movement which began after the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade is one of those movements whose motives are unquestioned as morally right by Christians. Non-christians may hold a different view of what is morally right.The movement is thus one that is right for the Christian to be involved in and for all Christians to support, prayerfully, financially, and by personal involvement.

As far as Roe v. Wade itself is concerned, the Court's ruling was a foregone conclusion, since all the necessary pre-conditions for it to come about had already been put in place, nearly a century before. On this, we will have more to say later.

Recently, frustration in the pro-life movement as a result of its failure to stop the baby murders has begun to take some serious side-turns into violence. Frustration is further aggravated by court decisions and actions in Congress, which limit the right of pro-lifers to protest the practice of abortion and picket abortion mills. Many incidents have been well publicized on national and local television, including those of police brutality towards pro-life picketers outside of abortion mills.

All this is rather surprising considering the fact that the pro-life movement is well organized, and has a following that numbers in the millions among both Christians and Non-christians. The movement is well funded, and it has not hesitated to go to court at the drop of a hat to fight for the rights of the baby in the womb. It is also politically active and will not hesitate to make its views felt in the media and at the polls, although this has had little effect on the overall outcome of the abortion issue.

If all these pluses existed in any other movement, especially on the left, there would have been major changes in the policies of the government.

But, abortion continues unabated and all the pro-life movement has to show for its nearly three decade effort, is a handful of court decisions that really say nothing and do nothing to stop abortion. When we couple repeated failures to elect a majority of politicians at the top levels of government who will legislate against abortion, with its court failures, we can see why the pro-life movement appears to be losing its strength in some places and in many cases, its followers are simply giving up the fight as membership in local organizations falls.

Perhaps, it is time for the pro-life movement to realize that its past strategy and tactics of protest, political influence at the Federal level, and spending many hundreds of thousands of dollars on high-priced lawyers, simply will not work, and cannot work. The reason is, the pro-life movement has the deck stacked against it precisely because of the tactics it has chosen. To be blunt about it, the pro-life movement has adopted the tactics of its opposition and is playing by the abortionists rules, not by the rules of God's Law, and thus, they have played into the hands of their opponents. Worse yet, pro-lifer's do not know it.

Has it not occurred to anyone that the minute one goes into the oppositions courts that one automatically loses the ground of one's own law?

This idea must be depressing to the pro-lifer, and yet we must say that it is obvious, given the current political structure, that a political solution at the Federal or State level is not the answer.

The bottom line is, the government and system of law that the pro-life movement thinks it's dealing with and the government and law that actually exist are two entirely different things as this essay will demonstrate, in brief.

In simple terms, given the current Federal government and its law, the pro-life movement cannot and will not succeed so long as it continues to pursue the same strategy it has pursued for the last thirty years.

But, the real shocker about the pro-life movement is: not one writer, to the best of Our knowledge, has ever asked the most fundamental questions of all about abortion:

First, is abortion against the Law?

Answer: Yes, it is.

Second, Is there a court in which this Law can convict abortionists?

Answer: Yes, there is.

Third, is there a specific form of action whereby a case against abortionists can be made?

Answer: Yes, there is.

One would have thought that with all the hundreds of thousands of dollars the movement has spent on legal research over the last thirty years or so, that someone would have discovered this.

The point is, the only possible way in which the pro-life movement can be successful is by using real Law--not Codes, Ordinances, Statutes, Rules, and Regulations. And, it will most certainly not be successful by using politics at the Federal and State levels.

"Individuals [Christians] rely for protection of their rights on [Christian] law, and not upon regulations and proclamations of departments of government, or officers who have been designated to carry laws into effect." Baty v. Sale, 43 Ill. 351.

[Codes, edicts, proclamations, decisions are not Law which define or regulate the Good and Lawful Christian Man.]

Further, the Law we will recommend to the pro-life movement, does not require any legislature to enact it at the Federal or State level. Indeed, the Law is already in place and needs only to be implemented and enforced, and when this is done, abortion will disappear.

"When a law is suspended, the law continues in esse, for the time being is not operative, but as soon as the power of suspension is relaxed it goes into immediate operation." Arroyo v. State, Tex., 69 S.W. 503, 505. Words and Phrases, vol. 24A, Permanent Edition, p. 98.

Implementing this law does not require lawyers or attorneys because it can be used and put into full force and effect by anyone with the proper standing, even government school graduates. Nor will it be expensive. This law has been carried on the books for over three hundred years and is still valid, today.

But, to use this law effectively will require study for the pro-life leaders, at all levels of the movement. They in turn, can teach the use of the law to their constituents. Implementing the program suggested herein will mean the end of abortion through the law, but, this law cannot be applied to the nation as a whole or to the States. It can only be applied on a county by county basis. And, once abortion is ended in a county, the abortionists will never return, because the Law will be waiting for them elsewhere, only so long as the Christians remain vigilant.

First, we must know what the current law in America really is, as opposed to what we think it is. If one understands the current system, he will then understand why the pro-life movement cannot use the existing political or legal system at the Federal and State levels.

Second, pro-lifers must realize that the lawyers and attorneys that they have spent so much time and money with, are a major part of the reason why abortion still exists in America. This is so, because the lawyers cannot bring the proper Law against the abortionists, for the reason: they, themselves, practice in a jurisdiction and venue which does not permit the use of real Law.

Third, we will introduce the solution by stating what the real Law has to say about abortion, and by this means, we will show how this Law can be implemented and what will be required of the pro-life advocate to end abortion.

The Current Political Situation

It has been well documented in the public record, especially at the Federal level, that Lincoln's War wrought profound changes in the American political landscape. The problem is, Christians do not yet know or even suspect that these changes have taken place, much less do they realize the significance of the changes.

"Amendments Fourteen, Fifteen, Nineteen, and Twenty-Four, each of which has assumed that the States had general supervisory powers over state elections, are express limitations on the power of the States to govern themselves." Oregon v. Mitchell (1970), 400 U.S. 112, 91 S.Ct. 260, 27 L.Ed.2d 272. [From the above, the "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution has been perverted and extended to objects which were never intended by its framers. This is achieved through merging the enforcement clauses of the post bellum amendments with it.]

The so-called Civil Rights Acts, the 14th Amendment, and the Suffrage Acts are principal methods whereby these changes were made.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 (an implementation of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation) created a new class of citizen, i.e., citizens of the United States. Prior to these acts, one was only a State citizen and had no Federal citizenship. After these acts, there was the possibility that one could have a dual citizenship, in the United States and in a State.

"The 14th Amendment creates and defines citizenship of the United States. It had long been contended, and had been held by many learned authorities, and had never been judicially decided to the contrary, that there was no such thing as a citizen of the United States, except by first becoming a citizen of some state." United States v. Susan B. Anthony, supra, p. 830. See also Mills v. Breen, 67 F. 818, 828.

Originally, these acts gave black people rights similar to those of white persons. But, the point that has always been over-looked by subsequent legal historians is, free people of color (which included all non-white races) always had the same rights as white people and did not need the "benefit" of the Civil Rights Act.

Indeed, all the black soldiers in the North that joined Lincoln's Army were "free people of color," and thus, did not need the benefits bestowed by the later acts of Federal government. But, these acts nevertheless, treated these black soldiers as if they were persons who needed the benefits even though everyone knew that free people of color were already free men. In simple language, the black soldiers that fought, bled, and died for Lincoln were betrayed by the infidel and his successors by having their standing in law reduced to that of men who were former slaves, so that they too, could become surety for the national debt.

The important thing to note about these Acts is, they did not really create a right, but a benefit.

"The civil rights bill ... was to become [in futuro] the archetype of the Fourteenth Amendment, its provisions were also more far-reaching. For the first time, American citizenship was defined by federal law, and the government's right to intervene in the protection of a [its] citizen's civil rights was specifically asserted. Persons defined as citizens had the right to sue, testify in court, acquire and sell property [emphyteusis], and enjoy the full and equal benefit of all laws without regard to race or color." Wood, The Era of Reconstruction, 1863-1877 (1975), pp. 34-35.

Note that this "benefit" is commercial, and thus, Roe v. Wade was not decided on the basis of Law, but on the basis of a Federally granted 'benefit' of abortion.

Thus, in the Civil Rights Acts, as with the 14th Amendment and the changes in the voting laws found in the Suffrage Acts, were a hidden agenda designed by Lincoln and his followers to create a new class of Federal citizens that would be bound to the Federal government in such a way that they could be used as surety for the national debt.

The first of these Acts, The Emancipation Proclamation, bestowed the temporary benefit of Federal citizenship and provided the bondholders of Lincoln's war debt with the surety they needed in order to buy the bonds.

The point of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was not to set the slaves free, but to extend a benefit [privilege] to the slaves, disguised as a 'right,' which was taxable. In fact all that really happened to the slaves is that jurisdiction over them was moved from Southern plantations to the Federal plantation, as surety for Lincoln's debt.

Thus, by the end of Lincoln's War, the new government now known as "The United States," was in debt to the tune of some 2.7 billion dollars. This debt was owed to those who bought the Federal governments bonds that were sold to fight Lincoln's War. But, the Federal government had at that time limited assets to guarantee the safety of the bonds to the bondholders.

Contrast Civil Rights with God-given Rights and one will see that God-given Rights are not taxable, but Civil Rights are. Thus, since all benefits, privileges, and opportunities offered by government are taxable as a rule of law (policy), then the benefit bestowed upon the slaves was taxable as well. And, anyone who took advantage of these Acts was thus taxable.

Thus, in 1862, Lincoln created the Bureau of Internal Revenue to collect taxes on the benefits offered in the Civil Rights Acts, and this further assured the bondholders that they would get the interest on their money for many years to come. To this day, however, the debt incurred by Lincoln in his war is yet to be paid off.

Further, the debt was not then, nor is it now, a sinking fund--that is, the principal is never reduced and always remains as the basis for the interest payments to the bondholders. Every dime of debt accumulated by the United States government from 1861 to the present has been built up using this same funding scheme.

Thus, any idea that the Civil Rights Acts were a great boon and gift to minorities in America is a flat lie--a propaganda ploy--to hide the fact that the Federal government was using those who took advantage of the Civil Rights Acts as surety for the national debt. To this day, the situation has not changed.

But, it gets worse. The genius of the Civil Rights Acts was, that they were put into effect by a government that had no real standing in Law. Thus, one had to voluntarily register to receive the benefits of the new government, and hence pay the taxes through the Civil Rights Acts.

Before anyone jumps to any conclusions about registering to vote, let it be made clear that prior to Lincoln's War, all people who were eligible to vote had their names enrolled on the Great Roll of the County. In other words, electors were enrolled, not registered. Voter registration was created in the aftermath of Lincoln's War and was an entirely new scheme.

Today, everyone takes for granted that they're a United States citizen, but prior to Lincoln this was not the case. At any rate, no one considers for a moment the very first qualification to register as a voter that is listed on the back of all Voter Registration forms. In simple terms, unless one agrees that he is a "citizen of the United States," he cannot register to vote and thus submit himself as a voluntary surety for the national debt.

The point about the Civil Rights Acts is, the United States government had no lawful authority to pass such Acts, because at the time these Acts were passed, the Federal government was no longer a lawful civil authority, but a military authority and the nation was still under qualified martial law, as it is to this day.

The only difference between the martial law of 1867 and 1997 is--martial law in 1867 was flagrant, while the martial law of today is not flagrant.

This point is made in Part One of the heavily documented treatise in "The Book of the Hundreds," where we have shown that the United States government that came out of Lincoln's War is not the same government that went into the War, in so far as its law and form is concerned.

To describe this in terms of law, we say that the government which existed in 'Washington City' and 'The District of Columbia' before 1860 was a government in fact (de facto) and a government in law (de jure). But, the government after the war was merely a government in fact, and not a government in law. Today, this is the situation in 'Washington, D. C.'

By the way, since Lincoln's War ended, a host of works have been published which say, in different ways, what "The Book of the Hundreds" says in its Part One, "A Prolegomena to Current American Law." Its just that Christians have not been paying attention, or simply didn't care.

In recent years, Christians have begun to feel uneasy about Birth Certificates for a variety of reasons. At one time, the record of a Christian birth was kept in the family Bible, which thus constituted a Lawful record and was admissible in court. This is still true today.

But, after Lincoln's War, all levels of government began to promote and then to insist upon Birth Certificates. The same took place in corporations, small business, the military, in educational institutions, and in hospitals. In hospitals, for example, one can have great difficulty getting their baby out of a hospital after it's born. The reason is that the hospital receives (in addition to the money paid by the baby's father and mother) a cash payment for every live birth recorded in its facility - from the Federal government. And, while the hospital does this for reasons of profit, the government does it in order to certify that another of those "all persons born" is now on the record and more surety is added for the national debt.

The public schools require a Birth Certificate because they cannot claim payments for each child in school, unless that child has documentary proof that he is a 'citizen of the United States.'

In other words, the so-called "cradle to grave security" that was so heavily promoted by the Liberal Democrats and Republicans in F.D. Roosevelt's administration and the Great Society of L.B.J. is really an anachronism for "cradle to grave surety."

At any rate, the Civil Rights Acts were the cornerstone of the new government's power over minorities, but, it took the 14th Amendment to create the extension of this power to eventually include all people born in America.

Racial minorities simply didn't have the assets to allow the new Federal government to go into debt very far. The goal was to get at the assets and property of white people. This was done by the simple expedient of a Birth Certificate to lay the basis for jurisdiction, and when the child is older, he can confirm the receipt of Federal benefits as a United States citizen by volunteering again, for Social Security, registering to vote, etc.

Still, and more to Our point, it was the 14th Amendment which was necessary to lay the foundation of a woman's 'right' to do that which was unlawful, i.e., to murder her own baby, which, thanks to the Civil Rights Acts, suddenly became a new civil right in America.

Next month, more on Abortion under the common law, and the remedies thereof.

Land by Inheritance

The purpose of this short article is to aid You in getting Land and placing it under Your Christian Dominion under God. There is no other possible way for Man to exist without Land inherited from God.

"Nulle terre sans seigneur--No land without a lord." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2151.

This is a first imperative, because it is written,

"Le ley de Dieu et ley de terre sont tout un, et l'un et l'autre preferre et favour le common et publique bien del terre --The law of God and the law of the land are all one; and both preserve and favor the common good of the land." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2142.

In other words, without Good and Lawful Christians holding the Land under God there is no Law of the Land. This then leads to the decay of Christian nations,

"Legem terrae amittentes perpetuam infamiae notam inde merito incurrunt --Those who do not preserve the law of the land, then justly incur the ineffaceable brand of infamy." Bouvier's Law Dict. (1914), "Maxim," p. 2142.

First I must define a few terms for You so you can understand the nature of what you have done in the past, which placed you in the situation you now find your Self.

You probably followed the "American Dream" of obtaining a mortgage from a lending institution (bank, thrift, savings and loan, credit union, ad nauseam) so you could afford to buy that dream. Unfortunately, that is all you bought--the dream, vaporware. This sounds harsh, but it is never the less true.

In looking at the mortgage papers from whatever lending institution you obtained your mortgage, you entered into an equitable relationship in commerce with that lending institution, which clouded your relationship with God, i.e., You lost your unalienable rights:

"UNALIENABLE. Incapable of being transferred. Things which are not in commerce, as, public roads, are in their nature unalienable.The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 3350.

Property is not unalienable, but is alienable and therefore, negotiable. The name given on the papers is, in Law, a nom de guerre--a misnomer--because it does not follow the Law composed of the customs and usages of English Grammar:

"NOM DE GUERRE--a war name; an assumed traveling name; a pseudonym." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969), "Dictionary of Foreign Words and Phrases," p. 1202.
"MISNOMER.--I. Nouns. misnomer, misnaming; lucus a non lucendo (L.); malapropism, Mrs. Malaprop
"nickname, sobriquet (F.), or soubriquet, by-name, pet name, assumed name, pseudonym, alias, nom de guerre (F.), nom de plume (English formation), pen name, stage name, nom de theatre (F.).
"II. Verbs. misname, miscall, misterm, nickname, take an assumed name.
"III. Adjectives. misnamed, miscalled, nicknamed; soi-disant (F.), self-styled, pseudonymous, so-called, quasi.
"nameless, anonymous (abbr. Anon.), innominate, unnamed, unknown, unacknowledged; pseudo.
"Antonyms. See NOMENCLATURE." Roget's Thesaurus of the English Language in Dictionary Form (1936), p. 310. [A nom de guerre, a war name, is a misnomer.]

Thus, in obtaining the "loan" from the institution, you never entered and took possession in your Christian character, which had been clouded by the equities of the mortgage. The institution, because it is not established by God, is a fiction and can only concern itself with fictions.

"Disparata non debent jungi --Unequal things ought not to be joined." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1859), "Maxim," vol. 2, p. 127.

All this sounds too technical and boring. Isn't there an "easier way?" If God wanted it any easier, then it would be more difficult for Good and Lawful Christians to take, hold and occupy their Dominions under God.

We must now examine the meaning of the word "title" for it is probably the most misunderstood word in the vernacular, as well as the legal language.

"250. Title is the means by which the ownership of real property [or land] is acquired and held. This is either:
"(a) By descent, or
"(b) By purchase.
"The fact which in any case gives or creates ownership over real property [or land] is called title. Title signifies the manner in which estates and interests in land are acquired. At the beginning of real property law in any country there must be an original acquisition of title to land. After title has been thus acquired all subsequent acquisitions of title to the same land must be by transfer of the title.
"Descent and Purchase.
"All titles are said to be acquired by descent or by purchase. Purchase means more than mere buying, it includes acquisition of title by devise or by gift. In short title by purchase means title acquired in all ways except by descent." Hopkins on Real Property (1896), p. 399. [Emphasis in italics added.]

Notice the distinction between "land" and "real property." "Real property" has limitations on it described in the deed of conveyance, such as loss of mineral rights. But the term "land" is different:

"Land in its legal signification has an indefinite extent upward." Lux v. Haggin, 69 C. 255, 392, 4 P. 919, 10 P. 674.
"Cujus est solum, ejus est usque ad coelum --He who owns the soil owns it up to the sky." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2130.
"Land" also extends downward to the center of the earth, thereby taking in all mineral wealth to be discovered by the occupant at the surface. Were you ever aware of this? Notice the words "means" and "manner" in the definition of "title." "Title" is not the piece of paper, but the method and manner by, or under, which You obtained, hold, and subject the land under You to the Law of God. In other words, did you obtain the land by descent or purchase? The highest title is by descent through inheritance. The word "purchase" from the above includes "gift" and therefore is not limited to an exchange of money for land. Accordingly, then, the lending institution does not have the "title" either, because it never made entry. It has a lien on the "persona"--nom de guerre--but not "title." So who does?

This might come as a shock to You, but only God has the real title, and He may give it for an inheritance to whomsoever He wills. But,

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Cor. 6:9-10.

In other words none of those who engage in the aforementioned practices can take Dominion under God, for they deny His Power.

"But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." Eph. 4:3-5. [Emphasis added.]

Illustrating the

Obscure Fallacies of American Politics

by Michael Paul

An Admission of a Historian Revisionist

Seeking the Truth in my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is God's Blessing that has brought me in to His garden of Life and Liberty. In the past, I have been deluded with false dogmas and corrupt thoughts of reality, bringing hatred and frustration--including fear. Today I realized the truth why the humanist created the Civil War against the Christians and their governments. And, today, I now know how to protect myself with Lawful means by standing in proper law venue founded by our fathers of 1776. I hope one day many will do the same venturing into the history of Law as I did to learn the Truth.

Too many are still caught up in the world of lies and wasting valuable time engaging in silly arguments and sometimes meaningless fights of selfishness. I don't have patience with those minds, but I can only try witnessing the truth to them. But my greatest enemies are the 501(c)3 not-for-profit religious (apostate churches) organizations that choose not to offend anyone with the truth, and yet, would rather engage themselves in the venue of commercial interest and benefits from government rather than enjoy the fruits blessed from Our Most High.

Many so-called Christians don't know the difference of being "in the world" and being 'of the world." Out of ignorance of the Scriptures and the Law, or perhaps due to their laziness, most gullible Christians tend to believe whatever the establishment media says--especially the de facto government. The majority of Christians know only the First and the Sixteenth Amendments to the Bill of Rights. And common law to them means something about an unmarried couple "living together"....?

It is sad to see how the Christians think the way the humanist deluded them with its propaganda in media and government. Don't get me wrong here; I was like that for a long time. But you will change your attitude quickly once you observe the Law by research in your county law library. Then, watch how the Scriptures become alive with power for the first time in your life.

From what you have read here in this newsletter from Maj. General Birkhimer's Introduction and from the Opinion of Attorney General's writings on the matter of "new jurisdiction," may open your eyes. The following is a written "admission" of that fact in excerpts from George P. Fletcher, a law professor from Columbia Law School in an article Unsound Constitution, published in the New Republic magazine, June 23, 1997, p. 18:

"The fourteenth Amendment further confirms the new sense of the United States as a national community with its clause prohibiting the states from 'depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; [or denying] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' The clauses account for the enormous expansion of judge-made constitutional law in the past fifty years."

If you remember, "person" is in the same legal definition as "natural man" created by and for the humanist with its Fourteenth Amendment and the "new jurisdiction." (Remember what Scripture says about a "natural man"? Read First Corinthians, Chapter two, verse 14.) The writer is clearly in a secular mode and distorts the facts when stating:

"...According to the official story [fairy tale?], we correct- ed the racist mistakes of 1789 and got the Constitution on the right track. 'We the people' are still in power." [Insert added]

In power? Hey! Wait a minute here. Previously in that article, he stated:

"...the Fourteenth Amendment contains its own grant of legislative authority to Congress to implement its principles by appropriate legislation." [Emphasis added ].

Hmmm, sounds like the Congress may grant man certain rights rather than acknowledge that they are a gift from God. And, funny how indirectly he is calling those who believe in God a "Racist" by ignoring the fact in law that all the states, but two, passed their own laws abolishing slavery before the War. But, it is expected now to see how those humanists behave. They go out of the way to lie--to be godlike for power...Like unrepentant monsters for creating all wars and rumors of wars...Ah, the lies, deceit and greed is really what the Fourteenth Amendment is all about.

(continued from Issue the Twentieth)

In the first flood, God determined that Noah and all that were with him on the ark were the only creatures on earth that were worthy of life:

"Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God." Genesis 6:9

Those left beneath in the ebb and flow of equity and iniquity were the sons of Adam--the secular, mundane, unregenerate natural man--those that put God behind them. For Noah and his ark, no matter how high that water of equity and iniquity rose, the Law prevailed. Noah had 'exercised his right of avoidance' and God's grace was upon him.

There is again a flood upon the land. This new flood manifests itself in codes, rules, regulations, licenses, etc.--taxing and regulating natural persons and their privileges, private rights, ownership, class, negotiable instruments, property, contracts, etc., ad nauseam. Not Law.

The waters are rapidly rising in this new flood, with more and more codes, rules and regulations of the ungodly raining down everyday in a torrent. Through "Exercising Your Right of Avoidance," an ark, floating above those troubled waters, is always available by the grace of God.

Peter, when walking on the water with Our Lord, feared the wind and began to sink. At that moment, Peter was no longer walking with God, but instead believed that a fiction of nature could harm him, in spite of being in the presence and under the protection of his Shield and Buckler, his Refuge and Fortress. A simple, but sincere pleading of "Lord, save me," saved him.

"Be strong and of a good courage, fear not, nor be afraid of them: for the LORD thy God, He it is that doth go with thee; He will not fail thee, nor forsake thee." Deut. 31:6

As in the times of Noah and Peter, we must rise and remain above the fictitious equitable ebb and flow of the ungodly, by walking with God and never doubting.

Avoiding Legal Personality

Please read 'To Be or Not To Be: A Human Being' in Issue the Sixth, for further study of 'person,' 'natural person' and 'human being.'

Personality. In modern civil law.
"The incidence of a law or statute upon persons, or that quality which makes it a personal law rather than a real law. By the personality of laws, foreign jurists generally mean all laws which concern the condition, state, and capacity of persons." Story, Confl. Laws, 16.

Your 'condition, state (status), and capacity (Powers, Obligations, Rights)' above mentioned, is evidenced by the walk you take (by their fruits you will know them...). The question of these 'foreign jurists' (the agents, judges, and magistrates of The District of Chaldea) is--who is your Master--God or man?

And who's court are you found in (the lex fori):

'Lex Fori: The law of the forum, or court; that is the positive law of the state, country, or jurisdiction of whose judicial system the court where the action is brought or remedy sought is an integral part." 2 Kent, Comm. 462.

"A member of a State may be either a citizen, occupying the status entitled 'citizenship,' or he may be a resident alien, occupying the status designated by the title 'residence.' A citizen is a permanent member of the State, owes it allegiance at all times, and is entitled to its permanent protection whether he is at home or abroad. The status of his membership ('citizen- ship') is distinguished by its permanent and personal nature and may be determined by the place of his birth (jus soli), by the nationality of his parents (jus sanguinis), by his election, or by some form of naturalization ["All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside."--Fourteenth Amendment, section one.]." Smith, Handbook of Elementary Law (1939), pp. 12-13.

A citizen is a pagan (see Etymologicum Angicanum, page eleven), giving allegiance and looking to the State for its protection, not to God. There is the rub. There is the election. Citizenship, residence, ownership, naturalization, nationality, a name, birth date and birthplace--these are the marks which give you 'legal personality,' and are the worldly indicators of the natural man:

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." 1 Corintians 2:14-15

Homo vocabulum est naturae; persona juris civilis. Man (homo) is a term of nature; person (persona), of civil law. Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), 'Maxim of Law,' page 2136.

Avoiding the attachment of a 'legal personality' to oneself is paramount in avoiding the world of the ungodly. The following is a sample of how one can avoid the trappings of 'legal personality':

Christian response(s) at the traffic stop, or at other places of interest:

Question: "Let me see your driver's license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance."
Response: "I have something better. I have the Law of My Father and Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." and hand him your Bible; and ask, "I am a Good and Lawful Christian Man, are you? I send you greetings from My Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to exercise Ministerial powers in this matter." If he begs the question then declare that "The maxims of Law state that the cause of the church is a public cause, and private interpretation is irrelevant."
Question: "What is your name?"
Response: "I don't have a name. Names are the notes, symbols or marks of things, given by only those in Authority to those in subjection. No man has authority over Good and Lawful Christians, for it is written in the Law of my Father that, 'Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.' I have a name known only by my Father, written in His Book of Life."
Question: "Do you own this vehicle?"
Response: "I can't own anything. The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof. I am a joint heir with My Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. It is a maxim of law that 'No one can be owner and heir at the same time.'
Question: "Do you have any identification?"
Response: "My Father has numbered the very hairs on my head, and I am more valuable to him than the birds of the air. Therefore He knows Me. In His Law there is no requirement for identification, because I am sealed by His Holy Spirit, which marks and separates me from natural persons, and I am known."
Question: "That is all well and good. But you have to understand, you must have a license or some form of identification when you are out here on the roads."
Response: "By the Law of My Father, I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me, and I am not out here hurting any body, and I have not hurt any body. I understand only (choose one): One, lawless forms of humanity; or, Two, natural persons --must have some sort of identification."
Question: "Where do you live?"
Response: "Wherever I happen to be at the time, because by the Law of My Father, I am a transient and sojourner with Him."
Question: "Where is your home, residence, abode, domicile, or dwelling?"
Response: "I am homeless."
Question: "Where do you receive your mail?"
Response: "I do not receive mail. I call for my First-Class matter posted to Me at general delivery only."
Question: "When were you born? --What's your birth date?"
Response: "I don't know. I was not conscious at the time. Only my Father knows that and He has never told me. It is hearsay only, and irrelevant to a Good and Lawful Christian."
Question: "How old are you?"
Response: "I do not know. And to venture a guess would be telling a lie. It would be a conclusion based on hearsay."
Question: "Where were you born?"
Response: "I don't know. I was not conscious at the time. My Father has never told me. Again that is hearsay."
Question: "Where do you plan to return?"
Response: "I do not know. I follow my Shepherd wherever He leads me. I will follow him because I hear His Voice, and a stranger's voice I do not hear. My Father directs my comings and goings during My sojourn here with Him."
Question: "Please sign the ticket."
Response: "I cannot sign that paper, because I am a bondservant of My Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. By Law, all that I have belongs to Him, and therefore, I cannot make engagements which either obligate Him or Myself."

The preceding is simply an overview of the perspective from which you must speak and the attitude you must take when dealing with those that wish to pillage and plunder your life. The questions will never be the same and the answers must always come from the heart through The Holy Spirit, not from the reasoning brain.

Driver's License

In addition to this section, please read 'Exercising Your Christian Liberty on the Common Ways' in Issue the Fourteenth.

With the volumes of court cases in existence on the subject of the Driver's License and Registration, one could fill a book. Therefore, for space-sake, we will only cover a few cases which spell out who are, and who are not required to hold a driver's licence and registration.

"The Motor Vehicle Act (Stats. 1913, p. 639) is not unconstitutional as making an arbitrary and unwarranted classification, in that it requires professional chauffeurs, or drivers of motor vehicles for hire, to pay an annual license tax, but exempts all other operators of such vehicles from such tax and regulation." In re Stork (1914), 167 C. 294.
"A chauffeur within the sense defined in Veh. C. 71, is one who is paid compensation for his services." Hunton v. California Portland Cement Co. (1942), 50 C.A.2d 684, 123 P.2d 947.
"The occupation of a chauffeur is one calling for regulation, and therefore permitting a regulatory license fee, under the rule that when a calling or profession or business is attended with danger or requires a certain degree of scientific knowledge upon which others must rely, then legislation properly steps in and imposes conditions upon its exercise." In re Stork (1914), 167 C. 294.
"A 'license' is not a contract between the state and the licensee, but is a mere personal permit, granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for consideration, to a person, firm, or a corporation, to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business which is subject to regulation under the police power." Rosenblatt v. California Board of Pharmacy, 69 Cal.App.2d 69, 158 P.2d 199, 203.
"A licence is a permit, granted by the sovereign, generally for a consideration (Smith v. Commonwealth, 175 Ky. 286, 194 S.W. 367, 370), to a person, firm, or corporation to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business subject to regulation under the police power." State ex rel. Guillot v. Central Bank & Trust Co., 143 La. 1053, 79 So. 857,858.

There is but one sovereign in heaven and earth--The One True Living God. When you take a license or registration, you take a new fictional sovereign/master. That 'master of persons' is a military master wielding the police power -- that is your new master.

Unlicensed Nonresident

Sec. 12503. "A nonresident over the age of 18 years whose home state or country does not require the licensing of drivers may operate a foreign vehicle owned by him for not to exceed 30 days without obtaining a license under this code." State of California, 1995 Motor Vehicle Code.

In Sec. 12503, the 'home state' for Christians is Christendom. Also, note that the 30 day limit is for owners of the vehicle. 'Owner' is a commercial term. With Christians being joint heirs with Christ, Christians don't own anything. Claiming ownership removes the ability to be heir, for:

Nemo ejusdem tenementi simul potest esse haeres et dominus, "No man can at the same time be the heir and the owner of the same tenement." 'Maxim,' Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, p. 1190.

All that one need have is his Bible, which is his Law, when 'Exercising his Christian Liberty on the Common Ways.' Again, "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me."

Automobile Registration

"The same principles of law are applicable to them as to other vehicles upon the highway. It is therefore, the adaptation and use, rather than the form or kind of conveyance that concerns the courts." Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown (1905) 165 Ind. 465, 74 N. E. 615
"The automobile is not inherently dangerous." Moore v. Roddie (1919) 106 Wash. 518, 180 P. 879; Cohens v. Meador (1916) 119 Va. 429, 89 S.E. 876; Blair v. Broadmore (1917) 121 Va. 301, 93 S.E. 632.
"Section 260 of the Vehicle Code provides in part: "(a) A 'commercial vehicle' is a vehicle of a type required to be registered under this code used or maintained for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit or designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of property. [P] (b) Passenger vehicles which are not used for the transportation of person for hire, compensation, or profit and house cars are not commercial vehicles."
"Furthermore, the trial court said,. 'Vehicle Code Section 260, subdivision (a) encompasses vehicles used for carrying persons for hire and the transportation of property'."
"We conclude that the lower court's construction of Vehicle Code section 260 more reasonably conforms to the legislative intent and that the term "for hire" modifies the term "transport- ation," so that a commercial vehicle is one in which persons or property are transported for hire. Thus, "commercial vehicles" are of two types: (1) those put to the use of transporting persons for hire, and (2) those designed, used or maintained primarily for the transportation of property. In other words, vehicles used for the traditional purposes of public livery or conveyance, such as buses, taxicabs or other vehicles functioning as common carriers or otherwise, operate for profit. Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Carrier Ins. Co. (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 223, 227-228, 119 Cal.Rptr. 116.

Foreign Vehicle Registration.

Sec. 4152.5 "When California registration is required of a vehicle last registered in a foreign jurisdiction, an application for registration shall be made to the department within 20 days following the date registration became due. The application shall be deemed an original application. State of California, 1995 Motor Vehicle Code.

"Became due," are the key words in this section. To avoid registration coming due, you must put the car into a foreign jurisdiction that does not have a due date for re-registration. This is done by first 'junking the title' of the car. This removes it from the jurisdiction of 'the State':

Total Loss Salvage Vehicles.

Sec. 11515 (c). "Whenever a total loss salvage vehicle is not the subject of an insurance settlement, the owner shall, within 10 days from the loss, forward the properly endorsed certificate of ownership or other evidence of ownership acceptable to the department, the license plates, and a three (3) dollar fee to the department. State of California, 1995 Motor Vehicle Code.

This simple act removes the car from the regulations of commerce. 'The total loss' is the loss of commercial ownership and the gain of being joint heir with Christ. The question is: Now what do I do?

Due to lack of space this month and further research to be done, I will go into extensive detail next month on putting your car under the jurisdiction of Christendom.

Use of a Social Security Number

Social Security Administration: "An agency of The Department of Health and Human Services under the direction of the Commissioner of Social Security which administers a national program of contributory social insurance whereby employees, employers, and the self-employed pay contributions which are pooled in special trust funds. When earnings are stopped or reduced because the worker retires, dies, or becomes disabled, monthly cash benefits are paid to replace part of the earnings the person or family has lost. In addition to administering the various retirement, survivors, disability, and supplemental security income (SSI) benefit programs, the SSA oversees the administrative hearing and appeals process involving benefit claims." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition (1990), page 1390.

In other words, one who remains attached to a Social Security Number is a 'human' (see 'To Be or Not to Be a Human Being,' in Issue the Sixth) and receives 'benefits' from a 'national program,' under administrative 'law.' Sounds like a 'creature' of the corporate State.

The sad part is that this whole 'social program' came about through voluntarily submitting to the conquerors, as admitted by the IRS in their 1962 'Personal Letter to Taxpayers,' to wit:

"The Internal Revenue Service is gradually installing modern high-speed electronic equipment which will improve and strengthen tax administration.
Because many names are alike, it is necessary to use numbers, in addition to names, to identify taxpayers in our electronic and other records. Since 130 million Americans already have Social Security numbers, it was decided to use these numbers for tax purposes to save them the inconvenience of obtaining other numbers. Most taxpayers have been putting these numbers on their tax returns for many years, and will need only to continue this practice."

In other words, "no Social Security Number, no taxable income." The problem is, "How do I earn a living without a Social Security Number? All employers require a number before they'll hire me." The answer, as always, is found in Scripture:

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." Jeremiah 6:16

How did the fathers work without being raped of their earnings? They stayed out of the 'business world' and worked only within their Christian community, where there was protection from foreign outsiders. That is the place where you must return to. Finding and working for or with those of like mind is the tack one must take to get out from underneath the beast.

Which will it be? To see, and ask for the old paths, or turn a blind eye to The Word of God? Will it be, "I can make the changes and sacrifices necessary,"-- or will it be, "I can't change and give up all that I have worked for all of my life. I'm too comfortable. I think it's easier and more convenient to keep things the way they are."

There are no gray areas available. The choice--serving The One True Living God--or Baal.

In Issue the Twenty-second, we will examine ways of removing your car from underneath the beast of commerce and bringing it back under the Dominions of Christ. In addition, we'll explore alternatives to corporate employment, court appearance, and property registration under the state.

Woman: The Unsung Heroine of War

The Story of Mrs. Mary Brady

This month we introduce you to Mrs. Mary Brady. Her story is most remarkable and we hope very uplifting and edifying for all of you. It has always been traditional among historians to shove women in the background somewhere, out of the way, so that they can write about the great battles of war from the mouths of those who fought them. Little do these historians know the valuable contributions that dedicated Good and Lawful Christian Women make in sustaining the morale and character of those engaged on the front lines of a battle. A soft voice with comforting words of resolution and firmness in support of her husband's or her community's Christian execution of Christ's Testament go along way in providing sorely needed calmness in the face of battle. Mrs. Brady showed such courage out on the front lines when the Union armies were engaged with the Confederate armies.

We personally believe the carnage, misery and mutilation described here would never had taken place had Good and Lawful Christians occupied the positions in government. Lincoln was a practicing infidel who sacrificed the Saints both North and South, on the altar of communism, to achieve the misery in which we now find ourselves. Let us pray that God will be merciful to us repenting sinners, and show us the paths to reformation, and reconstruction in the Light and Life of His Word. Without our Repentance there is no Christian Reformation and no Christian Reconstruction. Without loving and supporting Good and Lawful Christian Wives our house cannot stand.

Mrs. Mary A. Brady{1}

{1} The text of this story is taken from Frank Moore's "Women of the War" published in 1866.

An old Greek writer, in reflecting how his nation had been roused from luxury and stimulated to actions that made Greece heroic by the stress of the Persian invasion, exclaimed, in his enthusiasm, "War is the father of all things."

In like manner, we of America, looking at all the latent heroism that was developed during those four years of national agony and national glory, may, in no accommodated sense, hail our great war as the father of a great national peace, before impossible, and the nurse of magnanimous acts, and lives of saint-like devotion to the good of others.

While, among those who composed our armies, there were men who fought from very different motives and incitements,--some for love of glory, some from hatred of national injustice, some for a splendid name, and some for an undivided nation,--so, among the heroines, some followed their husbands, and were ready to dare everything and suffer everything for them and their cause; others sought the field out of a generous rivalry not to be outdone in sacrifices by the sterner sex; others were incited by pure patriotism; while a few moved and acted from motives rarer and purer, perhaps, that all these--a simple and unmixed desire to alleviate human suffering, a philanthropic kindness of soul, and the swelling of a large-hearted charity, that was willing to labor anywhere, and in any manner, to relieve the wants of those who were suffering pain and privations in a worthy cause.

Prominent among this numerous class must be placed the record of a lady whose name is written at the head of this memoir.

Mrs. Brady was not an American by birth. She had no son, or brother, or husband in the war. Born in Ireland, in 1821, and having married, in 1846, an English lawyer, twelve years of quiet residence in this country had, no doubt, sufficed to impress her with American love and pride; but she had no such stake in the issue, no such incentives to do all and suffer all that woman can in such a struggle, as might hae impelled the exertions of the thousands who did far less than she.

What demand of mere patriotism could have made it her duty, as an American citizen merely, to forego all the comforts of her home in Philadelphia, leave a family of five little children, push her way through all embarrassments and delays, through all the army lines, and sometimes in spite of general orders, to the very front, or to those hospitals where the men were brought in with clothing red with the fresh-flowing gore of battle, and spend days and weeks at the field hospitals just in the rear of the great battle-fields, and return home only to restore her wasted energies, and start out again on her errands of tireless philanthropy? Yet such is the outline of Mrs. Brady's life, and such the summary of her charities from the summer of 1862, when the sick and wounded from McClellan's peninsular army were brought to the northern hospitals, till the summer of 1864, when, by reason of her exertions, exposures, and excitements, the silver cord of life was strung too tightly, and in the midst of her labors, while planning fresh sacrifices and new fields of exertion, it snapped, and she ceased to live, except in the hearts of survivors, and in the memory of thousands of soldiers who "Shall tell their little children, with their rhymes, Of the sweet saint who blessed the old war-times."

Up to the summer of 1862 the life of Mrs. Brady was unmarked by other than the domestic virtues and the charities of home. Her life was that of an industrious, kind-hearted woman, finding her chosen and happy sphere in the duties of wife and mother. She merited the eulogy which the Greek orator bestowed on that woman, who, most intent upon home duties, was least talked of abroad, whether for praise or blame.

It was on the 28th of July, 1862, that Mrs. Brady and a few others met at her husband's law office, to take into consideration the condition of the soldiers who had been brought from James River, and were then languishing in various hospitals in and around Philadelphia, but principally at the Satterlee Hospital, in West Philadelphia, not far from Mrs. Brady's home.

There alone was an ample field for their labors, and objects to absorb all the contributions of charity and patriotism that could be made to pass through their organization as a channel of sanitary relief. Here were three thousand soldiers, a mutilated fragment of the grand army with which McClellan had advanced up the peninsula, and which had floundered in the mud and rain, and through the battles of the Chickahominy, had been reduced by the six hard fights of that terrible campaign. True, the worst cases of the wounded were in hospitals nearer the front, at Washington, or Norfolk, or on James River; but here were hundreds and hundreds languishing with that low, dull fever that overcame so many who shared in that campaign, and which was called in the army the "James River fever." Here, too, were the mutilated men, nursing the painful stumps from which an arm or a leg had been amputated. The absolute physical necessities of these patients were, to a reasonable degree, met by the customary appliances of an army hospital. The patient had a bed, narrow and hard, indeed, but clean. His food was such as the hospital surgeon prescribed--now a plate of boiled rice, now a slice of beef, or a dish of soup. But moral and social restoratives he had none. To wrestle in grim patience with unceasing pain; to lie weak and helpless, thinking of the loved ones on the far-off hill-side, or thirsty with unspeakable longing for one draught of cold water from the spring by the big rock at the old homestead; to yearn, through long, hot nights, for one touch of the cool, soft hand of a sister or a wife on the throbbing temples,--this was the dreary routine of suffering and cheerlessness in the great hospital before Mrs. Brady and her associates commenced their labors of wise and systematic kindness.

The object of their organization was declared to be to create committees, who, in turn, should visit the different wards of the United States Hospital, for the purpose of ameliorating the condition of the sick and wounded soldiers, and to establish a depot of sanitary supplies, whose location should be generally known; to have their organization officially recognized by the governor and the military and medical authorities of the United States; and eventually, that members of the association should visit the hospitals at Washington and the army in the field, to learn the wants of sick soldiers, and do all in their power to relieve them.

Mrs. Brady was elected president of the association; and from that day to the hour of her death--not quite two years after--her labors were unceasing, her devotion unbounded, and her discretion unerring in the great enterprise of the sanitary well-being of the soldiers of the republic.

For some months their labors were confined to the hospital at West Philadelphia. A committee of these ladies regularly, each day, went the round of the hospital wards, distributing the delicacies and the various articles of comfort that were now daily arriving in a steady stream at the depot for their hospital supplies on Fifth Street.

But the ministries of Mrs. Brady and her corps were not confined to the mere distribution of currant jelly, preserved peaches, flannel shirts, and woolen socks. They carried with them a moral cheer and soothing that were more salutary and healing than any of the creature comforts. The patient, suffering hero of Williamsburg or Malvern Hill was assured, in tones to whose pleasant, home-like accents his ear had long been a stranger, that his efforts in behalf of his country were not ignored or forgotten; that they too had a son, a brother, a father, or a husband in the field. Then the pallid face and the bony fingers were bathed in cool water, and sometimes a chapter in the New Testament, or paragraph from the morning papers, read, in tones low, but distinct, and in such grateful contrast to those hoarse battle-shouts that had been for weeks, perhaps, ringing through his feverish brain--"Column, forward--dress on the colors--aim low--make your shots tell--file right, march! "

Then the painful and inflamed stump was lifted, and a pad of soft, cool lint fitted under it; and the thin, chalky lips would move slowly, and say that he "felt easier."

Here a poor fellow, who had an armless sleeve, was enjoying the services of a fair amanuensis, who in graceful chirography wrote down, for loving eyes and heavy hearts, in some distant village of Vermont or Michigan, the same old soldier's story, told a thousand times, by a thousand firesides, but always more charming than any story in the Arabian Nights--how, on that great day, he stood with his company on a hill-side, and saw the long gray line of the enemy come rolling across the valley; how, when the cannon opened up on them, he could see the rough, ragged gaps opening in the line; how they closed up and moved on; how their general came along, and made a little speech, and told them to aim low and then give them the bayonet; how he rushed on at the command to "charge;" how this friend fell on one side, and poor Jimmy on the other; and then he felt a general crash, and a burning pain, and the musket dropped out of his hand; then the ambulance and the amputation, and what the surgeon said about his pluck; and then the weakness, and the pain, and the hunger; and how much better he was now; and how kind the ladies in Philadelphia had been to him; that he didn't care much about the loss of his arm, so far as he was concerned, only he couldn't do as much for his father and mother as he had hoped; but he lost it in the line of his duty, and would lose the other one rather than have the government broken up.

Who would not sew, knit, make currant jelly, write letters for a hospital full of brave, patient heroes like that?

After their recovery and return, Mrs. Brady received numerous letters from those she had visited in the hospitals, thanking her and blessing her for her good deeds.

The following, from a Pennsylvania volunteer, is selected from a score equally interesting:

CAMP NEAR BELLE PLAIN, VIRGINIA,

January 19, 1863.

MRS. MARY A. BRADY,
Dear Friend: There is one of my comrades in the West Philadelphia Hospital (Ward H) by the name of Harry Griffin. I wish you would be so kind as to call and see him as you make your daily rounds.
You are engaged in a good work in visiting the afflicted, and by contributing to their wants; and surely you will reap your reward in good season, and God will bless you. Every true soldier you have helped shall remember you with respect and gratitude. I shall always remember you myself with deep feelings gratitude, and I shall never forget the kindness bestowed on me by the ladies. "A friend in need is a friend in deed." My arm is still sore.
Believe me to be, madam, yours truly,
JOSEPH A. WINTERS,
Co. B, 7th Reg. Pa. Vol.

Late in the fall, at the time of the annual Thanksgiving, Mrs. Brady and the others determined that those who still remained--some sixteen hundred--should not lack the material supplies on which to celebrate the day.

Mrs. Brady and Miss Lydie C. Price were the efficient committee on Thanksgiving Dinner. They appealed to the cities and towns around Philadelphia in behalf of the brave fellows, and Mrs. Brady showed her characteristic kindness and thoughtfulness by applying to Dr. Hayes for the release on that day of all the boys who for any indiscretion had found their way to the guard-house. The good surgeon granted her request, and Mrs. Brady had ready for them, at the appointed dinner hour, seventy-five turkeys, one hundred chickens, twenty geese, sixty ducks, eight hundred and fifty pies, eighty-five rice puddings, and fifteen barrels of eating apples. Two bakers' establishments were placed at their disposal, and the food brought up warm to the hospital in covered wagons.

The number of patients in this hospital now rapidly diminished, and, in December Mrs. Brady began to arrange plans for more extended and arduous labors for the soldier. At their depot there was a constantly increasing supply of various articles, such as the soldiers were supposed most to need.

Soldiers' aid societies had sprung up all over the state, and Mrs. Brady was widely known as president of the mother society in Philadelphia.

Numerous boxes had been sent to her care, and she regarded herself as the authorized trustee of the charities of large communities.

She determined not to trust the distribution of these goods to careless or unknown agents, but after consultation with others of the association, it was decided that Mrs. Brady was to go to the field in person, and distribute the contents of the boxes from tent to tent, as she found the men in camp who most required them.

While at Alexandria she prepared and sent home to the association in Philadelphia a charming narrative of her journey and all its incidents, and how the contents of the boxes were given out, and how the boys received them, and how she could have distributed twenty times as much without giving to any who did not require aid.

When she went to Fairfax and the camps between the Potomac and the Rapidan our national fortunes were at ebb tide. It was the Valley Forge of the war. The Peninsular campaign had been magnificent, but a failure. Then Jackson, and soon after Lee with him, had advanced to the Potomac, driving Pope before him into Washington city. Then at South Mountain and Antietam the invading tide had been met and rolled back; but Lee was not pursued. Then Burnside had taken the army across the Rappahannock, and fought a superior force under able generals, on the worst ground he could have chosen, with such results as might have been expected. The army was greatly used up and demoralized, and the sick list was fearful.

Beyond Alexandria, in the direction of Falmouth, where the army lay, Mrs. Brady came upon one camp of twelve thousand six hundred convalescents; a little beyond, a sick camp of eight thousand, and in the forty military hospitals in and around Washington she visited thirty thousand sick and wounded. Of course the sixty boxes she took from Philadelphia were but a mouthful to a hungry man; but she gave out the articles herself, with true English thoroughness and perseverance, making numerous inquiries, and faithfully striving to give to those who were most in need.

While travelling among this army of the sick, she was overtaken one evening by a snow storm, and was obliged to fare like the soldiers, shivering all night under one gray blanket, in a tent without a fire, and listening to a dreary chorus of coughing, which suggested all the grades and varieties of pulmonary disease. But her thoughts were not on her personal discomforts, rather on the twelve thousand sick soldiers, in the midst of whom she was passing but a single cheerless night; and she hurried home to ply her needle, and stimulate by her pen the activities of others, and collect as soon as possible additional supplies. She only stopped to pay a flying visit to the sick in Washington, and describes, in affecting language, how, in every ward she entered, all who were not too sick or badly wounded would rise up in their beds in astonishment at seeing a lady visitor.

At several of the Alexandria hospitals the doctors and nurses told her no other lady had ever called before.

In about a month Mrs. Brady, and the other ladies of the association, had sixty large boxes full of flannel shirts, socks, butter, dried fruit, wine, jelly, preserves, farina, soap, towels, combs, and several packages of smoking tobacco, apples, and onions. Her second trip was much like the first, except that now she penetrated to the extreme front, and heard the rebel drums tattoo in the camps on the other side of the Rappahannock, and the church clocks striking in Fredricksburg.

Here she took a four-mule wagon, and went through the army, stopping wherever a little red flag indicated a sick tent. She saved a number of boxes for the Alexandria hospitals, and the convalescents would file by her stand, and receive each an apple, a lemon, a handful of smoking tobacco, or a pair of socks, and what was just about as good, and cost nothing, a cheerful word, a smile, a pleasant joke, or a wish that she had more for each.

Returning home, the month of April was passed in active preparations for another trip. Yet her family was not neglected. In camp or on the cars she was knitting for them or making a dress, and at home divided her time between the demands of her family and the army, working now on a child's frock and now on a soldier's shirt.

May came, and with it Chancellorsville and its ten thousand wounded. This time she took forty-five packages, and they were filled with articles suited to the sick and suffering. With a view to immediate and practical efficiency, she took two cooking stoves, and proceeded at once to the great field hospital of the sixth corps, where she soon had a tent pitched, her boxes piled around for a wall, her stoves up, and a little squad of the slightly wounded to get wood and water, open her boxes, and take her cooked articles to the different hospital tents.

Reporting to the division surgeons, and working under them, she received "requisitions" that looked almost appalling, as she saw the rapidly diminishing pile of boxes, and the two cooking stoves.

She writes to the association at Philadelphia that "fifty dozen cans of condensed milk, a hundred dozen fresh eggs, thirty boxes of lemons, ten boxes of oranges, one hundred and fifty pounds of white sugar, two hundred jars of jelly, and twelve dozen of sherry are needed. "Everything is wanted," she adds, earnestly. "Send us linen rags, towels, and some cologne; some red and gray flannel shirts, and limb pillows for the amputated."

But her labors were not confined to her little extemporized kitchen. At night she could hardly sleep for the groans from the tents where the worst cases lay, and she often passed several hours, moving softly through those tents of pain, going to those who seemed to suffer most, and soothing them by words, and by little acts of kindness; fitting a fresher or softer pad under some throbbing stump, talking with some poor fellow whose brain was full of fever, and who thought the battle was not yet over; moistening lips, stroking clammy foreheads, and helping another soldier to find his plug of tobacco.

Then, at five o'clock, she had the fires started, and honored as many requisitions for rice pudding, blane mange, custard, and milk punch, as the draught upon her boxes could supply. This life lasted till some time in June, when the rapid invasion of Lee required corresponding movements on the part of Hooker, and the hospitals on Potomac Creek were broken up. Mrs. Brady had barely reached her home, and resumed for a little time the old and sacred round of domestic life, when she felt herself summoned to sanitary and hospital labors by a voice louder and nearer than any before--by the thunder of those five hundred cannot at Gettysburg, that for three fearful days piled the ground with bleeding wrecks of manhood.

Operating in her usual homely but effective and most practical manner, she at once sought a camping ground near a great field hospital, reported for duty to the division surgeon, and had a squad of convalescents assigned to assist her. Her tents were erected, the empty boxes piled so as to wall her in on three sides, and the stoves setup and fuel prepared; so that in tow or three hours after reaching Gettysburg, the brigade and division surgeons were pouring in their "requisitions," and the nurses were soon passing from her tent to with tubs of lemonade, milk punch, green tea by the bucketful, chocolate, milk toast, arrowroot, rice puddings, and beef tea,--all of which were systematically dispensed in strict obedience to the instructions of the medical men. Whenever during the day she could, for a short time only, be relieved from these self-imposed kitchen duties, and for many hours after nightfall, she was sure to be among the cots, beside the weakest and those who suffered the most. Her frequent visits to the army had made her face familiar to a great number of the soldiers, so that she was often addressed by name, and warmly greeted by the brave fellows. "To see the face of a lady does us good, madam." "We are very glad you are come." "You cheer us up, Mrs. Brady."

When she remarked how grateful the stay-at-homes ought to feel to the brave hearts that fought so gallantly for them, and drove back the rebel hordes from the great cities along the border, simultaneously a chorus of voices exclaimed, "Why, Mrs. Brady, we would all have died, to the very last man, right here on the battle-field, before we would have let the Confederates win, or move on to Philadelphia."

There we find the true reason of the national success at Gettysburg. It was not the Lee's abilities were clouded; not that Stonewall Jackson was dead. The Confederate force was never greater, never more resolute, or wielded with more masterly vigour; but they had never before met an army that was raised to the heroism of martyrs by the determination to "die to the very last man right there," rather than let the rebels win.

Speaking of her first day at these hospitals, Mrs. Brady says, "We shortly found ourselves rubbing away the pain from mutilated limbs, and bathing the feet of others, speaking cheerful words to them all, which latter we believed to do good like a medicine. In the daytime we cook and fill requisitions for all sorts of things, and personally distribute our miscellaneous stores to the men with our own hands, conversing cheerfully with the patients. Thus we spend our days as well as our nights."

The labors continued till August, when the field hospitals at Gettysburg were mostly broken up. For the remaining portion of the year 1863, as there were no battles in Virginia, Mrs. Brady remained at home, and continued her hospitals labors in Philadelphia, and in receiving and preparing supplies for the approaching winter. She was now well known in Philadelphia, and became the almoner of numerous but private charities, funds being placed in her hands to be used according to her discretion in aiding soldiers or their families. The most of this money she gave in a private manner, but regularly, to the widows of those who had fallen in the great battles. On one occasion, as we entered a street car, crowded with passengers, she noticed that a soldier was looking very steadily in her face. His sleeve was empty. Presently the maimed warrior called out, with some emotion, "Don't you know me, Mrs. Brady?" "Really," she replied, "I can't quite recollect you, I see so many of Uncle Sam's brave boys." "Not recollect me, Mrs. Brady?" said the soldier, his eyes now filling with tears: "don't you remember the day you held my hand while the doctors cut my arm off? You told me to put my trust in God, and that I should get well over it. You said I was to recover; and here I am, madam, thank God!"

It seems that he had felt a natural revulsion when the amputation was suggested, but asked to the surgeons to send for Mrs. Brady, and he would do just as Mrs. Brady said. She came, took the poor fellow's hand, and spoke a few low, kind words: "Now put up the sponge," said he to the surgeon; and the chloroform reduced him to insensibility as his pallid, bloodless hand still lay in hers. But, with the sensibility of her sex, she was obliged to turn away just as the operator took up the long, glittering knife.

Early in the year 1864, when Meade, in command, was maneuvering unsuccessfully against Lee for the occupation of the south bank of the Rapidan, in what is known as the Mine Run campaign, Mrs. Brady made her fifth and last visit to the front. She was now so well and so favorably known, that every facility was afforded her in the transportation of her boxes, and she penetrated to the front, and made herself useful in the primary field hospital that was established in consequence of the action at Morton's Ford, on the 6th of February. Her ministrations were of the same nature with those described above, except that here she saw the wounded just as they were brought from the field, and shared in the deep excitements and agitations of battle. She was just in the rear of an engagement that threatened at one time to become general and bloody. Most of the time she could secure no better than a bundle of wet straw. As a natural consequence of such hardships and exposures, we find her reaching home on the 15th of February, "completely worn out." An examination of her condition by physicians revealed the grave fact that rest and quiet alone could never restore her. An affection of the heart, which had existed for some time, but which, on account of her strong health and fine powers of constitution, had never before caused any uneasiness, had been rapidly developed by the last few weeks of uncommon excitement and fatigue.

Yet in March and April her health rallied somewhat, and she continued to collect and prepare the stores for another mission to the camp.

May now came on, and with it the grand advance of the army of the Potomac, now strongly reinforced, and wielded by a fresh champion, just come from his great victories in the west; and the nation was tiptoe with expectation. Then followed the battles of the Wilderness and Spottsylvania, with their necessary and ghastly sequel, the long rows of hospital tents, acres of wounded, and suffering, and sick, with the demand for every thing that can assuage pain, and reinvigourate the languid or exhausted currents of life. But Mrs. Brady could not respond to this call, as she had done when other battles were fought. Disease had seated itself at the fountains of her life. The abnormal action of the heart grew worse and worse, causing now the most acute suffering. Skilful physicians were summoned; but science was baffled, and the appalling announcement fell with unexpected and crushing weight upon the inmates of that home of which she was the centre and sun, that no human skill could prolong that life, but within a few weeks those five little children must be motherless.

On the very day that sealed the fate of Virginia,--the 27th of May, 1864,--when Lee gave up the open contest with his too powerful antagonist, and fell sullenly back to his intrenchments at Petersburg and Richmond, she, whose mind even then was turned from the solemn surroundings of the death-bed, and the tearful faces of her children, to the suffering heroes of those great fights,--she was summoned away from all stormy scenes and arduous labors, into the kingdom of perpetual peace.

The burial of her remains took place on the 1st day of June. Hundreds of soldiers and officers of the army of the Potomac sent to the surviving members of the family their fervent tributes to the worth, beauty, and strength of her character, and expressions of gratitude for the kindness they had experienced at her hands.

A very large number of sorrowing friends, and poor people, and widows of soldiers, and five ministers of that religion of love and charity which she had so eminently practised, were in attendance at her funeral, and paid abundant, yet not undue, honor to the memory of the dead; for, during the forty-two years of her earthly existence, as long as life and strength remained to enable her to labor for the good of others, had she not followed closely in the steps of Him who always went about doing good, and reproduced the virtues of that Scripture heroine, the woman that was "full of good works and alms-deeds, which she did continually" See Acts 9:36.

More 'Heroine's' in a future Issue.

Aaron's Golden Calf

The Gentiles were called to the true faith, and obeyed the call; many of the illustrious heathens would have doubtless done the same, had they enjoyed the same privilege: there are to this day many pagans who reject this advantage, to pursue their own blind imaginations. Crabb's English Synonymes (1890), page 467.

And the LORD said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves:
They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: Exodus 32:7-9

From 'Investor's Business Daily' September 15, 1997:

"The rich getting richer, huge CEO pay packages, insider trading, conspicuous consumption, merger mania, a nation awash in debt. No, not the 1980s. The '90s. Yes, the 'reasonable and 'sensible' '90s."
"In fact, by almost every measure, 'greed' is worse--or better, depending on which way you look at it--this decade than it was in the so-called 'Decade of Greed'."
"Get rich, borrow, spend, enjoy!!!"
"Luxury car sales--including luxury sport-utility vehicles--now account for 23% of all car and SUV's sold."
"Since 1989, money spent on gambling has climbed 57%."
"Nearly 25 million people play golf, beating the '80s peak by half a million."
"According to FBI data, arrests in 1995 for forgery, counterfeiting, fraud and embezzlement rose 22% from 1986 and 8% from 1991."
'While federal and corporate debt is down from its '80s peak, personal debt isn't. Total household debt--including mortgages, credit cards and other loans--as a share of disposable income is now almost 99%."
"Consumer installment debt as a share of after-tax personal income is at a record level."
"The delinquency rate on bank credit cards has hit a record high."
"The number of people filing for bankruptcy shot up to more than 1.2 million in the year ending June 30. That's more than twice the figure in 1989--and a new record."

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

compiled by Randy Lee

Pagan, Gentile, Heathen

Pagan, pei-gcn - heathen XIV.- L. pâgânus--rustic, peasant, citizen, civilian; eccl.) (Christian and Jewish, f. pâgus (rural) district, the country, orig. landmark fixed in the earth, f. *pâg- *pc g-, as in pangere fix, parallel to *pak- (see PACT); see -AN. The sense 'heathen' (Tertullian) of pâgânus derived from that of 'civilian' (Tacitus), the Christian calling themselves enrolled soldiers of Christ (members of the militant church) and regarding non-Christians as not of the army so enrolled. Represented earlier (XIII-XVI) by paien, payen - OF. paien (mod. païen) = Pr. paian, pagan, Sp., It. pagano; cf. PAYNIM. Hence paganISM. XV. The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966).

The Jews comprehended all strangers under the name of Goim, nations or GENTILES; among the Greeks and Romans they were designated by the name of barbarians. By the name Gentile was understood especially those who were not of the Jewish religion, including, in the end, even the Christians. Some learned men pretend that the Gentiles were so named from their having only a natural law, and such as they imposed on themselves, in opposition to the Jews and Christians, who have a positive revealed law to which they are obliged to submit. Frisch and others derive the word HEATHEN from the Greek g2<0, g2<46@H, which is corroborated by the translation in the Anglo-Saxon law of the word haethne by the Greek g2<0. Adelung, however, thinks it to be more probably derived from the word heide, a field, for the same reason as PAGAN is derived from pagus, a village, because when Constantine banished idolaters from the towns they repaired to the villages, and secretly adhered to their religious worship, whence they were termed by the Christians of the fourth century Pagani, which, as he supposes, was translated literally in the German heidener, a villager or worshipper in the field. Be this as it may, it is evident that the word heathen is in our language more applicable than pagan to the Greeks, the Romans, and the cultivated nations who practiced idolatry; and, on the other hand, pagan is more properly employed for rude and uncivilized people who worship false gods.

The Gentile does not expressly believe in a Divine Revelation; but he either admits of the truth in part, or is ready to receive it: the heathen adopts a positively false system that is opposed to the true faith: the pagan is a species of heathen, who obstinately persists in a worship which is merely the fruit of his imagination. The heathens or pagans are Gentiles; but the Gentiles are not all either heathens or pagans. Confucius and Socrates, who rejected the plurality of gods, and the followers of Mohammed, who adore the true God, are, properly speaking, Gentiles. The worshippers of Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, and all the deities of the ancients, are termed heathens. The worshippers of Fo, Brahma, Xaca, and all the dieties of savage nations, are termed pagans.

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

A Straight Road to Heaven

It is stated, that, as an eloquent preacher delivered a discourse, in which he set forth the intense and eternal torments of the finally impenitent, one of the modern restorationists was present; and having a desire to show his knowledge, followed the preacher to the house, where he took tea after the exercises of the day were closed, and introduced himself by saying--

"Well, sir, I have been to hear you preach, and have come here to request you to prove your doctrine."

"I thought I had proved it, for I took the Bible for testimony," was the reply.

"Well, I do not find any thing in my Bible to prove that the sinner is eternally damned, and I do not believe any such thing."

"What do you believe?"

"Why, I believe that mankind will be judged according to the deeds done in the body; and those that deserve punishment will be sent to hell, and remain there until the debt is paid," &c.

Said the preacher, "I have but a word to say to you; and first, for what did Christ die? And lastly, there is a straight road to heaven; but if you are determined to go round hell to get there, I cannot help it."

The man took his leave, but his mind was "ill at ease." There is a straight road to heaven still rang in his ears; he went home, read his Bible attentively, and was soon convinced of, and acknowledged his error, and after a suitable time united with the followers of the Lamb.

The Doctrine of Transubstantiation

A Roman Catholic gentlemen in England being engaged to marry a Protestant lady, it was mutually agreed that there should be no contests on the subject of religion. For some years after their union, this agreement was scrupulously observed; but in the course of time, the priest, who had paid them frequent visits, expecting to find no difficulty in making a convert of the lady, began to talk upon the peculiarities of his religion. He particularly insisted upon the doctrine of transubstantiation, and grew troublesome by his importunity. To avoid being farther teased by him, she one day seemed to be overcome by his arguments, and agreed to attend at mass with her husband the following Sabbath, provided she might be allowed to prepare the wafer herself. The priest not suspecting any thing, and glad on any terms to secure such a convert, gave his consent. The lady accordingly appeared at the Chapel with her husband, and after the consecration of the wafers, which she had brought with her, she solemnly demanded of the priest, whether it was really converted in the body of Christ? To which question he without hesitation replied, That there was a conversion made of the whole substance of the bread into the body of Christ, and that there remained no more of its form or substance.

"If this be really the case," said she, "you may eat the wafer without any danger; but as for myself, I should be afraid to touch it, as it is mixed with arsenic. The priest was overwhelmed by a discovery so unexpected, and was too wise to hazard his life upon a doctrine, for which he had, however, contended with all the earnestness of perfect assurance. The lady's husband was so struck by this practical confutation of a doctrine which he had before implicitly believed, that he never afterwards appeared at the mass.

Issue the Twenty-second

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

The county clerk--The Unknown Wizard Behind the Curtain, Part One ...

Civil Rights, Lawyers, and Abortion, Part Two...

Exercising Your Right of Avoidance, Part Four...

The Christian Doctrine of the Sabbath...

Etymologicum Anglicanum

Remembering the Old Ways

The county clerk -

The Unknown Wizard Behind the Curtain

Many of you have kept in good contact with us, and we thank you for your fellowship. Many of you have called and have heard us talk about the 'county clerk' (Note the lack of capitalization on both of these words. It is important!). Note well: We are not talking about the County Assessor, County Recorder or other Roman civil offices. In Part One of this article we will be concerned with an issue which has presented itself many times over the telephone. This concerns the clerk asking about whether your action is a 'civil action.' These words always meant one thing before Lincoln's War and something completely different after it. We have always told you to reply "no" to this question, without giving a thorough background in Law for the answer. We don't want to hold this information back, but as you will begin to see, this issue is really the only issue which must be overcome.

The bolded words and phrases in this article are those with which you should become very familiar.

Let me first state, for the record, that we will not put the words in your mouth for you to say to your county clerk. That is for the righteous Office of the Holy Spirit, and for us to do so is to trespass into His Realm wherein we have no authority. The burden is for you to prove the contrary. We believe in edification--not incantation.

Let us begin with that form of law which concerns itself with 'civil actions.' That quite obviously would be 'civil law.'

"Civil law: (a) the Roman law, especially the part that applied to Roman citizenship; (b) the body of law having to do with private rights: it developed from Roman law..... Roman law: same as civil law." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969), p. 1028. [Emphasis added.]

Did you notice what form of law that is? Roman!! Did you notice the subject matter of Roman law? Roman law concerns itself with private rights, not Rights in common vested by God through Jesus, the Christ, in all Good and Lawful Christians for as long as they execute His Testament. (It was this Roman law which put our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, on the cross. The private rights of the Pharisees, a separate class, meant more to them than their own salvation.) These Rights vested by God are the "common wealth" of all Good and Lawful Christians, being joint heirs in and through Christ which is always recognized in Law:

"Plures participes sunt quasi unum corpus, in eo quod unum jus habent--Several parceners are as one body, in that they have one right." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957, & 1968), p. 1314. [A 501(c)-3 corporation is not an heir in Christ.]
"PARCENER. A joint heir; one who, with others, holds an estate in co-parcenary, (q.v.). Gibson v. Johnson, 331 Mo. 1198, 56 S.W.2d 783, 88 A.L.R. 369." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 1268.
"RIGHT HEIRS. The heirs of the testator at common law, who, if more than one, take as tenants in common. 47 L. J. Ch. 714; 35 W.R. 356." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 2962. [Emphasis added.]

This establishes in Law "common right":

"Kent says: "Corporations or bodies politic are the most usual franchises known in our law." 3 Kent Comm. 459. It is true that the privileges so granted by the government do not pertain to the citizens of the state by common right. But what is the "common right" here referred to? Is it not [*common right is] a right which pertains to the citizens by the common law, the investiture of which is not to be looked for in any special law whether established by the Constitution or an act of the Legislature? Coke says: "De commun adroit--of common right--that is, by the common law, because the common law is the best and most common birthright that the subject hath for the safeguard and defense not only of his goods, lands, and revenues, but of his wife and children.This common law of England is sometimes called 'right,' sometimes 'common right,' and sometimes 'communis justitia.'" Spring Valley Waterworks v. Schottler, 62 C. 69. (*Insertion added.)

This removes the question of the 'private' 'ownership' of a 'right' and places the issue solely in the hands of God, "[Whose] hand is not shortened that it cannot save":

"Nemo potest esse dominus et haeres--No man can be both owner and heir." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 1190.
"Nemo ejusdem tenementi simul potest esse haeres et dominus--No one can at the same time be the heir and the owner of the same tenement." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 1190.

Note the above maxims. 'Ownership' is separate and distinct from 'inheritance.' We must then inquire into what the word 'private' means as this is the subject matter of which Roman law concerns itself. 'Private' implies and speaks of 'ownership'--a pagan concept.

"PRIVATE. Affecting or belonging to private individuals, as distinct from the public generally. Not official; not clothed with office. People v. Powell, 280 Mich. 699, 274 N.W. 372, 373, 111 A.L.R. 721." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957), p. 1358. [Emphasis added.]

Note carefully the words 'not official.' When looked at from God's perspective in His Law, all Good and Lawful Christians are officials--'executors'--of Christ's estate being vested by the Testament of Christ:

"Testament is an appointment of some person [*a Good and Lawful Christian], whom we call an executor, to administer them for him after his death. For without naming executors, or [*168] if they all refuse it, it is no will at all;therefore executors represent the person of the testator." Finch, Law or a Discourse Thereof (1767), pp. 167-168.
"EXECUTOR. A person named in a last will and testament and charged with carrying out its terms. The executor is not a trustee and does not get the title to the estate, but merely possession. He is, however, a fiduciary and held to the same accountability as a trustee. He may not enter on the duties of his office till he has qualified, which ordinarily requires approval of a probate court, and he is subject to removal by the court at any time." Matter of Burr, 48 Misc.(N.Y.) 56; Austin v. Munro, 47 N.Y. 360." Radin, Law Dictionary (1955), p. 118. [Emphasis added. An executor is under the Law expressed in the testament appointing him to the office.]
"An executor is a person to whom the deceased has by his last will duly committed the execution or putting in force of that last will and testament." Croswell on Executors and Administrators, 1.
"[*The executor] cannot assign his executorship, but at common law, when a sole executor [*our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ] dies testate [*by appointing His disciples in the Divine Commission], his executor [*His church and state] becomes ex officio the executor of the first will [*Old Testament], also.The rule never applied to administrators." Croswell on Executors and Administrators, 20. [* Insertions added]
"VESTED ESTATE. A vested estate, whether present or future, may be absolutely or defeasibly vested." L'Etourneau v. Henquenet, 89 Mich. 428, 50 N.W. 1077, 28 Am.St.Rep. 310." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 3397.

All executorships are offices created and established by the Testament; and, the acts done by Good and Lawful Christians pursuant to the Testament of Christ, are official acts which concern the estate of Christ--His church and state. God Himself testifies to this fact:

"Therefore say, Thus saith the LORD GOD; I will even gather you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries where ye have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel. And they shall come thither, and they shall take away all the detestable things thereof and all the abominations thereof from thence. And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh: That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God. But as for them whose heart walketh after the heart of their detestable things and their abominations, I will recompense their way upon their own heads, saith the LORD GOD." Ezekiel 11:17-21.

This passage of Scripture is directed to the church only--not to those impostors in the 'State of Israel.' Did you notice the words 'statutes' and 'ordinances?' By what or whose authority, then, did Christ do the things He did? By His Almighty Father!! According to Law, then, His acts were official, not by color of office or legalism.

Just how important are 'vested rights?' How does 'modern' law treat 'vested rights?' Read on:

"A vested right is an immediate fixed [non-negotiable] right of present or future enjoyment." Marshall v. King, 24 Miss. (2 Cushm.) 85. [Emphasis and insertion added]
"No statute can constitutionally derogate a vested right." Billings v. Hall (1857), 7 Cal. 1.

And now for the clincher:

"The inhabitants of the city of New York have a vested right [incorporeal property right] in the city hall, markets, water works, ferries, and other public property [*the offices they established by covenant among themselves], which cannot be taken from them, any more than their individual dwellings, or store-houses. Their rights, in this respect, rest not merely upon the constitution, but the great principles of Eternal Justice, which lie at the foundation of all free governments." Benson v. The Mayor & c. of New York (1850), 10 Barb. 223, 244-245.

Is there any law man can create which sets the bounds of God's Law? Only God's Justice is eternal justice. God is recognized in these decisions. You must understand and have the knowledge tempered with God's wisdom to know and understand what is being said by these courts. Your vested right to regulate the office of county clerk is not found in constitutions, codes, rules and regulations--but is common with all Good and Lawful Christians--the Body of Christ--not the 501(c)-3 corporation. It is found in the sustaining Law of God--pursuant to the execution of Christ's Testament. The courts did recognize true Law before Lincoln's War. This was one reason why the Pharisees had such difficulties with Christ. He had true Law He was executing--they had none. His acts were official--theirs were private, under color of office, title, legalistic. The acts or deeds they did were to preserve their private class--not preserve the church. Therefore, the action you bring to the county clerk must be an action which springs from the Law separate and distinct from Roman law, not involving private rights. The only Law separate and distinct from Roman law is Christian Law:

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Is 55:8-9.

Never ask the clerk whether he or she understands any of this--presume it--for no man is ignorant of God and His Law-- "they are without excuse" and it is said elsewhere:

"Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all in a sworn officer of the law." In re McCowan (1917), 177 C. 93, 170 P. 1100.

Having one heart is the basis of your community in and under Christ. When you establish with the county clerk that you have that 'one heart' 'having all things common' with all other Good and Lawful Christians, you have the Lawful standing to move the clerk. There is no other possible way to move the clerk.

The county clerk has two sides to his office, and depending on your mode and character, will determine which side you access. He is not deceiving you--he reacts to your acts. The two sides are: One. Administrative (commercial) for civil actions, and; Two: Ministerial (Constitutional) for true actions at Law not involving 'private rights.' The former always involves discretion, and where discretion may be used, mandamus will not lie:

"a public officer, invested with certain discretionary powers, never has been, and never should be, made answerable for any injury when acting within the scope of his authority, and not influenced by malice, corruption, or cruelty. See the cases hereafter cited.
"Nor will a mandamus issue to such an officer, if he is intrusted [*by statute, code, rule, or regulation] with discretion over the subject matter. Paulding v. Decatur, 14 Peters, 497; Brashear v. Mason, 6 How. 102." Wilkes v. Dinsman (1849), 7 Wall. 89. [*Insertion added]

Mandamus will lie for compelling purely ministerial acts only.

"MINISTERIAL. That which is done under the authority of a superior; opposed to judicial; that which involves obedience to instructions, but demands no special discretion, judgment, or skill." State Tax Commission of Utah v. Katsis, 90 Utah 406, 62 P.2d 120, 123, 107 A.L.R. 1477; Blalock v. Johnston, 180 S.C. 40, 185 S.E. 51, 54, 105 A.L.R. 1115; First Nat. Bank v. Filer, 107 Fla. 526, 145 So. 204, 207, 87 A.L.R. 267. Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 1148.
"MINISTERIAL ACT. One which a person performs in a given state of facts in a prescribed manner in obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety of the act being done. State Tax Commission of Utah v. Katsis, 90 Utah 406, 62 P.2d 120, 123, 107 A.L.R. 1477." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 1148.
'MINISTERIAL OFFICE. One which gives the officer no discretion as to the matter to be done, and requires him to obey mandates of a superior. Vose v. Deane, 7 Mass. 280; Savacol v. Boughton, 5 Wend.(N.Y.) 170, 21 Am.Dec. 181; Waldo v. Wallace, 12 Ind. 569. It is a general rule that a judicial office cannot be exercised by a deputy, while a ministerial office may." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 1234.
"MINISTERIAL OFFICER. One whose duties are purely ministerial, as distinguished from executive, legislative, or judicial functions, requiring obedience to the mandates of superiors and not involving the exercise of judgment or discretion. U.S. to Use of Kinney v. Bell, C.C.Pa., 127 F. 1002; State v. Loechner, 65 Neb. 814, 91 N.W. 874, 59 L.R.A. 915; Reid v. Hood, 2 Nott & McC., S.C., 169, 10 Am.Dec. 582." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 1148.

The words that come out of your mouth whenever talking to any government official or agent determine on which side of the fence they will sit. It is not enough to merely walk in and say, "I wish to address the constitutional side of your office." That is insufficient. In the mind of the clerk, "I need to see if you even have what it takes to move me there." To make this a little simpler, let us suppose you discover what appears to be gold. How do you know it is gold? You will test it with specific tests to determine the metal. The same with the county clerk. He knows you, like he knows any other person. You need to direct him to the constitutional-ministerial side of his office by using proper words which have a specific meaning in Law and leave no room for discretion:

"And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you." Mt 17:20. See also Mt 21:21.

This is fully recognized in modern Law:

"Although it has been vigorously asserted that the rights specified in the Amends. 1 to 8 are among the privileges and immunities protected by this clause, and although this view has been defended by many distinguished jurists, including several justices of the federal Supreme Court, that court holds otherwise and asserts that it is the character of the right claimed, whether specified as above or not, that is controlling." State v. Felch (1918), 105 A. 23, 92 Vt. 477.
"Causa et origo est materia negotii--The cause and origin is the substance of the thing; the cause and origin of a thing are a material part of it." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 278.
"Unumquodque est id quod est principalius in ipso--That which is the principal part of a thing is the thing itself." Bouviers Law Dictionary (1914), 'Maxim,' p. 2166.

That this is an important doctrine in Law is discussed by Professor Holland:

"A Right varies with a variation in any one of the series of its constituent elements. The possible variations in the two extreme terms of the series are, however, far fewer than in the two intermediate terms. This is the case, first, because both of the extreme terms are Persons, so that they are subject to the same sets of variations; and secondly, because as a matter of fact the possible varieties in juristic personality are far fewer than those in the juristic character of objects or acts.
"The Law of Persons, as a source of variety in rights, is therefore distinct from and much smaller than the residue of the Law, which is generally called the Law of Things. The jurist may make either one or the other species of characteristics his starting-point in considering the aggregate of rights which make up the whole field of Law. He may consider seriatim the possible varieties in the persons with whom rights may be connected; [*140] treating under each personality of the various objects and acts with which it may be combined: or, he may start from the variations in the objects and acts; considering by way of supplement the modifications which the rights connected with these undergo in each case from varieties in personality. Thus the aggregate of rights may be likened to a figure of two dimensions: the shorter of these dimensions representing the Law of Persons; the longer the Law of Things. And the figure may be supposed to be marked off into squares, like a chessboard, by the intersection of a few horizontal lines expressing the possible varieties of personality, and of a multitude of vertical lines expressing the possible varieties of object or act." Holland, Jurisprudence, pp. 139-140.

Thus, "personhood" is determined by the character of the right claimed or exercised. If the right claimed is a "civil right" then that "person" described in the "civil rights acts" must do "civil actions," solely because of his incompetency (non compos mentis) to execute Christ's Testament.

Next month, we will discuss the 'executorship of Christ's Testament,' 'common law actions,' 'civil actions,' and 'the police power,' and their relationship to the county clerk.

Civil Rights, Lawyers, and Abortion

(continued from Issue the Twenty-first)

The 14th Amendment

As we began to point out in last month's Part One, the 14th Amendment must be seen in its true light relative to the entire abortion question.

Another indication that the Federal government after Lincoln's War was not the government that existed before the War, is seen in the 14th Amendment.

Another new idea that followed the Lincoln administration was voting in secret. Prior to Lincoln, all voting in all elections was done by an open and public ballot. Thus, everyone in a community knew how everyone else voted. But, with Lincoln and the Reconstructionists came the secret ballot, which made ballot stuffing a very real possibility, for the first time.

The key point to understand is, voting in secret is not permitted in any system of Rules of Order, whether we look at Robert's or Sturgis' Rules of Parliamentary Law, because there is no way to know just what the total vote was for all candidates, nor is there anyway for the voters to know if more votes were cast in a precinct, than were actually eligible to vote.

The bottom line is, a secret ballot has no force and effect in Law, and thus, a vote in secret can at best, merely express a preference or an indication of what the voters may or may not like. No vote can, therefore, bind any politician, and thus, campaign promises really mean nothing. This is also the reason why no politician has to worry about the voters holding his feet to the fire.

At any rate, the key clause in the 14th Amendment that we want to call attention to, and which also sparked the early abortion movements in America is; "All persons born ..."

The legal reasoning relative to this clause was, and still is: until a baby is actually born alive it cannot be classified as a citizen of the United States and thus could not and can not be protected by the laws of the United States and the Constitution as used by the new Federal government.

Many in the pro-life movement know this. What the pro-life attorneys have not bothered to tell the movement is: whether or not this Amendment really embodies Law or does it merely express "public policy?" The question is important because Law is superior to public policy.

Is it possible to change the 14th Amendment and its wording to block the pro-death argument? Yes, it is possible for this Amendment to be amended, but it will not happen for the simple reason that, if amended, the amending process may expose Section Four of the Amendment as well, and this the Federal government could not permit.

This is so, because Section Four prohibits all questions relative to the national debt, which was one of the hidden purposes of the Amendment. Since the current United States government is in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, any change in Section Four of the Amendment could mean the end of the current government because such changes could permit anyone to challenge the debt of the Federal government under the maxim of law which says that: "no government can make law while in bankruptcy." This is the real reason for the existence of Section Four.

The United States government has always had limited assets, and could not go into a long-term debt without posting the surety of real property and the bodies and labor of real, substantive, flesh and blood people. The 14th Amendment not only created the jurisdiction over live bodies, but, when used in conjunction with other Acts, it made the debt possible and created a Funding System for the Federal government, which has been the basis for all Federal debt from that day to this.

Section Four of the 14th Amendment prohibits inquiries into that debt by those who accept the benefits of the Amendment, i.e., the citizens of the United States that are created in the opening sections of the Amendment. This gives added security to those who buy the bonded debt of the United States and guarantees to the bondholders that their money tree will not be chopped down.

Of course, when the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Roe v. Wade [93 S.Ct. 705], the 14th Amendment was dredged up, to prop up the Court's decisions, where it said at page 706, that:

"The word 'person' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the unborn." U.S.C.A., Amend., 14.

The Court states in the Roe v. Wade Syllabus at page 707, that:

"Ruling that declaratory, though not injunctive, relief was warranted, the court declared the abortion statutes void as vague and overbroadly infringing those plaintiffs' Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights."

Further, the Court says on page 708, that:

"State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Again, with reference to the 14th Amendment, the Court says on page 729, that:

"All this, ... persuades us that the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn."

The plaintiffs in this decision, asked for both declaratory and injunctive relief. In the first, the court merely states its findings and declares what the law will be from that time on. With injunctive relief, the Court could have issued an injunction against the State of Texas to block the enforcement of all its statutes relative to abortion, but it did not.

The Court gives its reasons for not granting an injunction by saying, at page 708:

"5. It is unnecessary to decide the injunctive relief issue since the Texas authorities will doubtless fully recognize the Court's ruling that the Texas criminal abortion statutes are unconstitutional."

Thus, to summarize the Court's reasoning, we can say that, based upon the 14th Amendment, the unborn have no right to protection in current Federal or State law, because the the word 'person' in the 14th Amendment does not include the unborn. The privacy argument raised by the court from which the feminists get the idea that a woman's body is hers to do with as she pleases, is really just thrown in for good measure, as an extension of the 14th Amendment's reach.

Thus, the entire abortion argument hangs entirely on an Amendment to the Constitution that is merely a War measure, since at the time it was passed, the entire nation was under martial law, and would continue to remain so, to the present day.

It is for this reason that the Court was sure that Texas would comply with the Court's ruling, because the State of Texas is a municipal corporation authorized under the War Powers of the Federal government. In a word, Texas was and still is, along with every other State and Territory, a lackey of the Federal government.

We would like to call attention here to one other point that is most interesting and very revealing as to how modern politics is easily mobilized by various groups to do the government's bidding.

The Supreme Court mentions on page 722-23, the history of the American Medical Association involvement in the abortion controversy and how, until just before Roe v. Wade, the A.M.A. had always opposed abortion. Again, just before the Roe decision, the American Bar Association in its February, 1972, meeting, adopted the Uniform Abortion Act which had been previously drafted and approved by the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.

For those who don't know, the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, is a group of men which represent the States that draws up the laws for all States, such that, all State laws are consistent, one with another. This same Commission, also provides the vast majority of input to the House and Senate of the United States government, on all legislative matters.

Then, we have the Roe decision, published in 1973.

Does this strike the Reader as odd, that the A.M.A., A.B.A., C.C.U.S.L. and the Supreme Court, all come to the same conclusion within six months of each other??? Is this just some coincidence, or was it planned??? Surely, the A.M.A., A.B.A., and C.C.U.S.L. knew in advance what the Court's decision would be in Roe!!!

Then if we factor in several official reports on the population bomb (which never exploded), all of which received major publicity in the media that peaked at about the same time as the Court's decision, one has to wonder exactly what is going on???

When we look at the problems inherent in funding Social Security, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the welfare system, and countless others, a light begins to come on. Remember, all of these programs and countless others, are funded in proportion to population and the projections of population growth, and the demand that this will place on Federal spending.

It doesn't take a Harvard Business School graduate to figure out that spending on social programs was far out-stripping the ability of the taxpayers to pay for them. The only practical solution was to reduce the future population of the country, otherwise the Federal government and the States would soon go belly-up and the bondholders of the nations debt would then step in and seize the assets of the United States government and the nation.

Does anyone need more explanation, or can the Reader read between the lines???

Now we know why the Federal government funds nearly 108,000 separate foundations and organizations all over this land. At a moment's call, they can be mobilized to mold and shape public opinion and the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States.

But, is it really possible that the Supreme Court of the United States could be buffaloed and manipulated by powerful pressure groups such as those that are listed above? It wouldn't be the first time!!

In speaking of the period following Lincoln's War, Claude G. Bowers said in his 1929 work, "The Tragic Era: The Revolution After Lincoln," that:

"Never have American public men in responsible positions, directing the destiny of the Nation, been so brutal, hypocritical, and corrupt. The Constitution was treated as a door mat on which politicians and army officers wiped their feet after wading in the muck. Never has the Supreme Court been treated with such ineffable contempt, and never has that tribunal so often cringed before the clamor of the mob."

The Common Law Answer

It is important at the outset to define which common law we are talking about, for there is a new version of common law that has been enacted that is overwhelmingly commercial.

Thus, when we say Christian common law, we mean that form of common law that was composed of the accumulated customs and usages of the English and American Christians prior to 1933. In Latin, the common law is referred to as the lex non scripta, that is, the law not written or created by the acts of judges, legislatures, kings, or presidents.

The common law existed prior to the Constitution for the united States of America, which, in it original version, embodied a good many precepts of Christian common law. Thus, it was a law common to Christians that embodied a good deal of God's Law. It was developed through, and actions in common law were tried in, At-law courts.

The distinction between true Christian common law is that it is Lawful because it embodies the customs and usages of God's people, while the current common law is purely commercial, and for this reason, commercial common law is inferior and foreign to the Christian common law.

Where a conflict in our thinking may exist, between the two forms of common law, we must distinguish the two forms by qualifying true common law with the word 'Christian.'

At the time the 14th Amendment was ratified, this did not mean that it removed protection for the baby in the womb, because one could still bring an action in courts At-law, i.e., through common law, in which abortion was, and still is, a crime. And the punishment for acts of abortion varied, depending on the stage of the pregnancy at the time of the abortion.

Further, the crime of an accessory to abortion can be charged against all parties to the abortion, and may be punishable by imprisonment or by fine, or by both, especially if the offense is repeated. Both a mother and the abortionist can be prosecuted at common law, and if there was evidence that the husband or father of the baby knew the abortion was going to be done and did nothing to stop it, the father could be charged as an accessory, along with anyone else who had prior knowledge and did nothing to stop it.

There was no provision in the common law for punishing the commercial exploitation of abortion for profit, such as that which takes place today, because such a thing had never happened in the history of common law.

At any rate, so long as courts At-law existed, the practice of abortion could not gain a foothold in America. Then, in 1933, the Supreme Court was given the power by Congress to make its own rules of procedure, with the understanding that common law procedure and its rules, and hence courts At-law in which common law actions are tried, would be abolished at the Federal level.

When Roosevelt packed the Supreme Court it was with the clear intent to embark upon a massive re-structuring of law in America, which would not otherwise be possible with a hostile court.

The Supreme Court went to work, and soon published its new rules, and courts At-law were gone from the Federal jurisdiction by the simple expedient of merging the rules of procedure for Law (At-law) and equity. The States quickly followed suit and within a very few years all had done away with common law procedure and courts At-law.

Some may wonder why the Supreme Court abolished courts At-law and common law process. There are many reasons for this, but some of the most important follow.

First, common law was the domain of Christians and embodied a largely Godly system of Law. But, by the 1930's, Christians allowed their courts to fall into disuse. There was simply no demand for actions At-law, in part, because everyone was turning to lawyers to fight the case for them.

Also, a new common law was about to be introduced which was in fact, not Lawful, but commercial. This new common law was more acceptable to Roosevelt.

Second, F.D. Roosevelt had substantial plans to expand the reach of the Federal government, by creating quasi-judicial administrative bodies to regulate virtually every facet of American life. But, in order to do this, he had to first eliminate the potential stumbling block of At-law courts, because the new policy he wanted to implement was contrary to common law. If common law actions were brought against these forms of law, the common law would win, because administrative law is not recognized in the common law.

The reason is, administrative law is almost entirely discretionary, while common law is ministerial and for the most part, prohibits discretion on the part of the ministerial officer. Thus, so long as At-law courts existed, there was a powerful tool that stood in the way of The New Deal.

Third, attorneys pushed for the abolition of At-law courts because all fees they could charge in common actions were severely limited by the common law and precedent. Simply put, the practice of common law was a ministry, and thus was not a means to wealth, power and subversion.

There is also the fact that members of the Bar associations, under the new government, could not practice in At-law courts because their membership in the Bar itself, changed their standing. Thus, by eliminating courts At-law, attorneys could force all clients to have their case heard in the new commercial and military courts where there were no limitations on fees, capriciousness, or arbitrariness.

Also, trials in Christian common law were normally very short and were usually over and done with in a matter of days or a few weeks. Today's court cases, as we all know, can take years. The kind of shenanigans that took place in the O.J. Simpson trial would never have happened if murder and other felonies were still tried at Christian common law.

If At-law courts existed in America, Christians could effectively block the implementation of all Federal programs within the counties and the impact of this would bring the Federal government to its knees.

If Christians had insisted that true At-law courts must be maintained in the counties and parishes, there would have been nothing that Roosevelt and subsequent Presidents and Congresses could have done to prevent it and the so-called New Deal would never have gotten off the ground, nor L.B.J.'s Great Society, nor abortion either.

And, with a concerted effort, Christians can once again restore these courts and begin to roll back the Federal encroachments within the counties (and eventually in the States) to such an extent that, every Federal program which runs counter to Christian common law could be stopped dead in its tracks.

Of course, neither the Federal government nor the States, being in an inferior jurisdiction and venue relative to Christian common law, can abolish the Christian's Right to re-form and use courts At-law and common law process. And so long as At-law courts exist in the counties across the land, the people will always have a voice in whatever happens in that county.

This explains why the Federal and State powers let courts At-law die and withdrew funding for them. Neither the Federal government nor the States, being de facto and not de jure governments, had the power to abolish Christian common law in America. They simply made no provision for it--in their system--and hence, courts At-law died an ignominious death, not from attack by a superior jurisdiction, but from neglect.

As we have pointed out in this newsletter and in countless other places the last three years, the country has been under a military government since March/April, 1861. It was a form of military government that emerged after Lincoln's War. The Constitution for the united States of America has not been abolished, it is simply no longer used by the new Federal government, just like courts At-law.

Thus, in 1867 the Attorney General of the United States could say in his opinion (12 Ops. Att'y-Gen. 182), concerning the meaning of the Reconstruction Acts:

"There can be no doubt as to the rule of construction according to which we must interpret this grant of power. It is a grant of power to military authority, over civil rights and citizens, in time of peace. It is a new jurisdiction, never granted before, by which, in certain particulars and for certain purposes, the established principle that the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority is reversed."

Can this be any clearer???

Under this military power sits a government of Civil Affairs known as the United States. It handles the actual civil affairs of the Nation. This is the Federal, commercial corporation established in 1872 by an act of Congress. This new Federal government, however, sits in a jurisdiction inferior to common law, and thus, since the inferior cannot touch or have standing equal to the superior, common law process and procedure which stand in real Law, is still available for those who have standing to use it.

But, if this is the case, why do we hear about "constitutional questions" in the courts?

For the answer to this we must look to the example of the British constitutional system in which there never was a written document called a Constitution. The British constitution is actually the whole body of law and acts passed by Parliament and kings and the decisions of courts, which have accumulated over the last eight hundred years or so. When politicians and lawyers refer to the British constitution, they mean a body of law and 'public policy', not a formal, single document.

After Lincoln's War the same thing took place in America. Today, the Constitution of the United States (not the same as the Constitution for the united States of America) is actually a reference to a body of legislation and a massive collection of Executive Orders created by the President as war measures, and the rulings of the Supreme Court.

This idea may be difficult for most people to understand, but it is nevertheless the real state of things. As George P. Fletcher, Professor of Law at Columbia University has recently said:

"The 'original republic'--the one for which our 'forefathers' fought 'face to face, hand to hand'--exists only in the minds of academics and fundamentalists patriots. The republic created in 1789 is long gone. It died with the 600,000 Americans killed in the Civil War. That conflict decided once and forever that the People and the States do not have the power to govern their local lives apart from the nation as a whole. The People have no power either to secede as states or to abolish the national government.
The new constitution - the one that shapes and guides the national government and disturbs the new patriots to their core - begins to take hold in the Gettysburg Address, in which Lincoln skips over the original Constitution and reconstitutes it according to the principles of equality articulated in the Declaration of Independence. This short speech functions as the Preamble to a new charter that crystallizes after the war in the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. The Gettysburg Address signals the beginning of a new Constitution. The language is so familiar that we do not realize the implicit transformation."

Next month we will discuss how 'The Lawyer Game' and 'De Facto and De Jure Government' pertain to how we get 'Back to Square One' on the abortion issue.

Part Four

(continued from Issue the Twenty-first)

The Arminian doctrine of 'free will,' which began to take hold of the church in the 17th century, gave rise to State power. Much of today's apostate 'church' continues to feed this doctrine to its sheep, which in turn continues to feed the Stately beast.

The power of the State is fed by the notion that, 'I have free will, therefore I need not do the will of The Father. I can do all things within myself.' Due to this humanistic reasoning, one automatically becomes a full fledged member of the humanist State. You join them as one of their bondservant 'human beings,' or for statute purposes, a 'natural person.' In their eyes, you do everything 'willfully,' and therefore, with evil and malicious intent (see Etymologicum Anglicanum in this Issue).

But when you do the will of The Father only, there can not be that intent, because evil and malice is not of the will of God.

It is an established truth that each man and each woman on earth are either a Christian or a pagan. There is no in-between. There are no gray areas. You are either in Christ, with Christ, and for Christ,--or you are anti-Christ, outside of Christ, and against Christ. You are either a Christian or a pagan/natural person.

With Christians being in Christ, we are bondservants of and co-heirs with Him, and are to worship Our Father in spirit and truth, and are to do His perfect will only, just as Our Blessed Saviour did:

"Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven." Matthew 7:21
"For whosoever shall do the will of My Father which is in heaven, the same is My brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:50
"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." Romans12:2
"Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me, and to finish His work." John 4:34
"I can of Mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and My judgment is just; because I seek not Mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent Me. If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true." John 5:30-31
"And this is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:40
"Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:" Eph 6:5-7
"For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:" Acts 13:36
"Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. For yet a little while, and He that shall come will come, and will not tarry." Hebrews 10:35-37

If you aim at pleasing, or obeying His will, without first seeking justification by Christ's precious blood and righteousness, and santification by His Holy Spirit, you will find all earthly powers against you. But, when Christ is for you, nothing can be against you. Without this, Satan's power and malice will certainly bring to naught all of your purposes and attempts to love The Father, to continually serve Him, and to do His perfect will in sincerity and truth.

When we do the will of Our Father, in this way only, we avoid the pitfalls of 'the human species' and its vain imaginations. This is truly, "Exercising Your Right of Avoidance."

It is important to note here, that you, when 'Exercising Your Right of Avoidance,' are assayed by the government. Not in the monetary sense, but in the personal sense. For instance, when one brings freshly mined gold to the assayers office, the assayer will test, examine, and evaluate the gold to determine its authenticity and purity. In the same manner, government evaluates those who claim to answer to and do the will another Master. They test you, examine you, and analyze you to find out your true composition. Their question is: are you the real item, or are you pyrite--or a mixture of the two? Their determination of the content, or purity, is based on three major factors:

-One. Does the amount of 'minimum contacts' you have with them, give them jurisdiction? Are you serving two masters? (see 'Minimum Contacts' in Issue the Seventeenth and 'Serving Two Masters' in Issue the Eighteenth).

-Two. Where does the access to you take place? Are you a resident, do you have a commercial domicile?; do you have a 'home' (tax home)?; are you an 'owner'?, etc. Or, are you truly a sojourner with Christ, able to be accessed only through 'The Door' (a foreign door to them), which is Christ Jesus?

-Three. Are you genuine? Will you see the wolf coming and leave the sheepfold because of fear (lack of Faith and Knowledge) and hearken to the voice of the wolf?

Before you 'Exercise Your Right of Avoidance,' you must take these questions into consideration, and determine whether or not you will 'pass muster' in the eyes of the military beast or will you be seen as an 'enemy in the field'?

What are the indicators of residency?

The following definitions are from Div. I, Secs. 435 and 516, of The State of California Motor Vehicle Code:

Nonresident
435. "'Nonresident' is a person who is not a resident of this state."
Resident
516. "'Resident' means any person who manifests an intent to live or be located in this state on more than a temporary or transient basis. Presence in the state for six months or more in any 12-month period gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of residency.
"The following are evidence of residency for purposes of vehicle registration:
(a) Address where registered to vote.
(b) Location of employment or place of business.
(c) Payment of resident tuition at a public institution of higher education.
(d) Attendance of dependents at a primary or secondary school.
(e) Filing a homeowner's property tax exemption.
(f) Renting or leasing a home for use as a residence.
(g) Declaration of residency to obtain a license or any other privilege or benefit not ordinarily extended to a nonresident.
(h) Possession of a California driver's license.
(i) Other acts, occurrences, or events that indicate presence in the state is more than temporary or transient."

Note: The 'rebuttable presumption of residency' is easily rebutted by not admitting to, or having, any of the listed requisites.

"The fact that a nonresident is exempt from registering his car or obtaining a license in the state in which he is operating it does not relieve him from the duty of complying with local traffic regulations, or from being punished for negligence or other infractions of the law." King v. District of Columbia, 277 F. 562, 51 App.D.C. 160.

Automobile Registration

This is a continuation from Part Three.

The steps for removing your car from State jurisdiction and bringing it under Christendom are as follows:

-One. Junk the Title.

-Two. Remove all 'corporate brand names' from the interior and exterior.

-Three. Make 'identification plates' for the front and rear.

-Four. Photograph the car and plates.

-Five. Create the proper paperwork for deposit with the county clerk.

One. Junking the Title

A variety of terms are used in the several States for this. Some are 'scrapped title,' 'junk title certificate,' 'destroying the title,' etc. It is best to acquire a 'Motor Vehicle Code Manual' from your local department to determine which term your State uses. Then take your 'Certificate of Title' into the department and proceed to remove it from their system. Do not remove the 'Vehicle Identification Number' (VIN) from the car. You will find that there are particular statute penalties for doing so. This number does not give the State jurisdiction of the car, once the title has been junked and removed from there records.

Two. Remove all 'corporate brand names' from the interior and exterior.

Removing the brand names helps remove the commercial character of the car. In addition, you can replace the brand names with your personal or church seal, such as a non-501(c)3 church seal or your Family Coat-of-Arms. The idea is to make it distinguishable from the corporate world.

Three. Make 'identification plates' for the front and rear.

The standard size for State plates is 6"x12". It is suggested that your plates should be a different size, to avoid any perception that you are trying to counterfeit plates. It also conveys a foreign jurisdiction. For instance, you will find that plates from England, Japan, Italy, etc., are not the same size as each other or the same as the States.

Sizes suggested are 5"x13", 7"x13, etc.

It is also suggested that a metal or plastic frame be made and put around the plate for appearance of permanence.

The following are samples of two different layouts that can be used:

Ways of making the plates will not be suggested here. That will be left to you.

Four. Photograph the car and plates.

Photograph the car from two different angles, and the front and rear plates. Make two sets, keeping one set with the car and the other is to be deposited with the county clerk.

Five. Create the proper paperwork for deposit with the county clerk.

The paperwork necessary for acceptance by the Constitutional/de jure side of the county clerk will not be available from The Christian Jural Society Press. Due to the past abuse of the Non-Statutory Abatement process, it will be left up to each Christian to develop their own process for the county clerk. It would be in the nature of At-Law process to be structured of the same substance as the following public notice:

Public Notice

by: <Christian Appellation>, suae potestate esse, <*et uxor>
To all whom these presents come and do concern: Ye be witnesses, before God, and His Son, our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, and all men, of having knowledge of this matter, and ye know that:
On this <day> day of <month> month, in the <year> Year of our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, I, <Christian Appellation>, suae potestate esse, <*et uxor>, one of several joint-heirs in Christ and co-executor of His Testament common in and with all other Good and Lawful Christians in this state, do, in His Name, by His Authority vested in me through His Testament, claiming all that He has given me; and repudiating and renouncing all not originating through, in, or with Him; take Dominion of all that part of Inheritance given me of Him, through and from Brother/Sister <Christian Appellation>, My Brother in the LORD, that being the following below:
<here describe what is being given you as part of your dominion in the inheritance of Jesus Christ. [*Example. One-two door coupe, green in color, with sun roof and rear hatchback door; with front and rear identification plate number ISA 9 6-7 and identified with the Heraldry of the Family <family appellation> enrolled in the <county name> county clerk's office on roll number 236754.] Use no commercial descriptors (brand names [i.e., Chevrolet], words such as "goods," "party," "purchase," "owner," "vehicle," etc.)--these are terms of art which do not apply to Good and Lawful Christians.> to have and to hold the same in His Name, subject always to the terms, conditions, caveats, and provisos, contained in His Testament given Me, by the Grace of God, and bestowed upon Me by and through our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ.

I have the Blessed Honor, solely by the Grace of God, of Being a Good and Lawful Christian man:
L.S.
sign manual

Additionally, there are many indications that the above will need to be done in each of the counties on whose roads you plan to use. It is suggested that you try it out first in a different county than where you are commonly located.

It is also suggested that before attempting any of the above or before writing your process, you should become very familiar with the workings of the Constitutional/de jure side of the county clerk (see 'county clerk' on Page one), study and become very knowledgeable of 'your' State Code sections concerning nonresidents, and understand absolutely the concept of Christendom being a foreign jurisdiction to the State. Without the above understanding, you may end up 'spinning your wheels' on this whole issue.

There is also the very real possibility that you will not be successful the first, second or third time.

This will be a battle of wills, so be sure you're ready for it. It took many decades for the humanists to encroach on and subvert Christian Law and it will take much time and effort to regain what is rightfully ours. But, it is either, 'draw the line in the sand, now,' or 'let the beast continue to encroach.' And remember, "The cause of the church is a public cause," not a private one. Therefore you are not, and cannot be, alone in any of this. Always do any of this with one, two, or many fellow-Christians. In addition, our telephone is always open for guidance and fellowship on these subjects.

Court Appearance

With the 'justice' system having been changed from one of 'Biblical Justice' to that of 'commercial necessity' and 'judge-made law,' you must look at the current system very carefully before entering into that jurisdiction and venue.

"91. Legal remedies are remedies which are administered only by governmental agencies, and are either penal or civil.
"Penal remedies consist of the punishment inflicted by state agencies upon persons convicted of crimes, and include fines [commercial term], terms of imprisonment, and capital punishment or death. The degree and severity of a penal remedy depends upon, and is correlative to, the degree and severity of the crime [not moral turpitude] committed by the person subject to it.
"Civil Remedies consist of those which are administered by the courts in civil proceedings, as distinguished from criminal proceedings, and subdivide into the following general classes: (1) Remedies which were administered only by the common-law [adjective] courts; and, (2) Remedies which were administered only by courts of equity prior to the fusion of equity and common law [two mutually exclusive systems]. Of course, in those jurisdictions where equity and common law are still administered as separate systems, the division still technically exists. As has been indicated, one of the principal reasons for the development of the English equity system was the inadequacy of common-law [adjective] remedies to meet the needs of growing society [To the ungodly, God's Word was inadequate for all situations.] In the ordinary case at common law [noun] the only remedy obtainable was a judgment requiring the unsuccessful litigant to pay the successful litigant a certain sum of money [substance, not paper fictions], and as the equity system evolved to correct this inflexibility by directing specifically whatever seemed necessary [military rule-- necessity] to do justice between the parties, the equitable remedies are naturally greater in number than the common-law [adjective] remedies." Smith, Handbook of Elementary Law (1939), p. 349. [Insertions and emphasis added]

The non-statutory abatement process should be used in situations where you are summoned by a 'court' or a governmental agency is asking for your voluntary joinder in one of their self-made imaginary 'controversies.'

In a situation where you have been brought into the 'court' involuntarily, always remember the basic defense of a Good and Lawful Christian, "I could not possibly have been 'willful' in this thing that I am accused of, for I do only the will of God, and there is no evil or malice in His will."

And, always remember what Our Lord has taught us:

"And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say: For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say." Luke 12:11-12

Corporate and State Employment

When working for a State or any of its chartered/licensed corporations and companies, the most important thing you must ask yourself and pray about is, "Am I doing the will of God and honoring Him by continuing to contribute and support Commercial Babylon through working for them."

For those who believe that their contribution and support is a Godly calling, the answer is easy. But for those who recognize the un-Godly character of those venues and are seeking repentance thereof, or do not exactly feel comfortable in their current situation, will have to do much thinking and praying on this.

Consider the following, which is from Richard Steel's 1747 book, 'The Religious Tradesman':

"Both the disposed and the disposers must agree to choose a calling that is lawful. To do a sinful act is bad enough, but to make a trade of sin, and employ our lives in one continued scene of disobedience to God, is a condition that cannot be thought of without the utmost abhorrence, by anyone in whom the principles of virtue and religion are not wholly extinguished; as the continual curse of God must necessarily be attendant upon them. The prospect of gain may blind the eyes of men, and carry them on in such a course without reflecting; but it is often seen that the divine resentment follows them, even in this life, by blasting their hopes and aims, and causing wealth thus gotten by vanity to be diminished; but should this not be the case, God does not forget, nor lose the right to punish, those crimes on which He does not animadvert in this world. It is a plain, yet lamentable case, that men are now disposed to take great liberties with their consciences, and make a light matter of religion, as if it was confined to a few outward acts of piety, without having any thing to do with their general conduct; in such an age it would be difficult to point out those callings that come under the character of criminal, without censure: yet everyone must acknowledge that those employments are certainly evil, that tend to lessen the reverence and duty we owe to Almighty God; or obstruct the general good of mankind; that are either the necessary occasions of sin to ourselves, or the certain incentives to it in others. Those only are lawful in which we can reasonably ask for the blessing of God, and expect His favour and acceptance. This, indeed, is the best rule we can form to ourselves by which to judge of every doubtful action."

Next month, we will conclude this subject with 'property registration' and some other less obvious things we should avoid in order to main our Christian standing and status.

The Christian Doctrine of the Sabbath

A Sermon by Pastor John Weaver

Pastor John Weaver, an expositor of God's whole Word, and who's preaching style is in the tradition of those early American patriot pastors whose pulpits were the cradle of America's Christian Liberty, delivered the following sermon on October 5th, 1997, at 'The Old Paths Christian History Conference' held at The church at Kaweah. Information appears at the end of this text on how to acquire the audio tape set of that conference, and in addition, how to acquire Pastor Weaver's excellent 24 hour, 15 part audio tape set titled, 'The Christian Doctrine of Biblical Warfare.'

The Christian Doctrine of the Sabbath

"And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
'Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily My Sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.
"Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
"Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
"Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
" It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day He rested, and was refreshed." Exodus 31:12-17

"Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee.
"Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work:
"But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.
And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day. Deuteronomy 5:12-15

I've been asked to deal with the sabbath day and the principal of rest. Let me begin by saying that many individuals have misunderstood the sabbath on the one hand and have turned what is known as the sabbath into pure legalism and Phariseeism.

So many people today have their own personal list of do's and don't's and if they do this or if they don't do that, then they not only condemn themselves but others as well. The Pharisees perverted the sabbath day. In fact, many times in the Bible you will read the phrase, "a sabbath's day journey." But the Pharisee's took everything to such an extreme that many times they would not even walk on grass on the sabbath day, because they were afraid if their foot happened to hit a blade of grass that it would head it out and the seed fall to the ground, then they would be guilty of sowing on the sabbath. So, very obviously they took it to one extreme. On the other hand there were other groups that took the sabbath day and became very, very licentious. In Isaiah, Chapter 58, God talked about those people, if they would refrain their foot on His sabbath day from doing their pleasure and do what He commanded, then He would bless them, etc.

So you always have extremes one way or the other. And both of these extremes are condemned in Scripture.

The principle of the sabbath was rest. God said in it, "Thou shalt do no work." Now the main emphases of the sabbath was rest--not worship--but rest. Certainly worship could be done and should be done every day of the week. But certainly the principle was that of rest. And God said to Israel, "You were in Egypt and I brought you out by a mighty arm."

Remember that in Egypt, Israel was enslaved. They had no rest, they had no comfort. God delivered them. And so that sign then, was basically a sign demonstrating that salvation was by the mighty work of God. And on that day they were to rest, because it was a sign, says God, that He gave between Him and His people.

Note if you would, that the sabbath then was a type--it was an emblem--it was a symbol--of the true rest.

Before we continue on that, let me tell you about case law. Case law in the Bible deals with very broad principles. For instance, "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it Holy." That's a very broad principle. Secondly, in case law, you always had a specific illustration or a specific case that would illustrate that broad principle. And then, thirdly, their was always an application. So, I want to follow that outline. I want to show you the broad principle, "Remember the sabbath, to keep it Holy." I'm going to show you a specific case that illustrates that, and then we're going to make some application.

The Hebrew sabbath and the modern day Saturday are not the same. I repeat, they are not the same. Saturday is not necessarily the sabbath. And I can explain it and show it to you in the Bible.

We now turn to Exodus, Chapter 12. But before we go there, I first want to explain something very important. The calendar of Israel was a solar calendar. Moreover, their religious, or their spiritual, year began on the same date every year. Let me show you the ramifications of that. Now, at Exodus 12:2:

"This month [which was the month, Abib] shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you."

Now, God is saying, 'Here is going to be the first month of your year, every year.' This month! Just like our year begins in January, Abib was to be the month for the beginning of the months in the Hebrew calendar. Now, at verse 6, He says concerning their lamb:

"And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening."

So here is the Passover lamb, that was kept up until the fourteenth day of the month. Now, watch verse 14; God says:

"And this day [the fourteenth] shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever."

So, God has fixed the month, God has fixed the date. And at verses 17 and 18:

"And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread [or Passover]; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day [the fourteenth] in your generations by an ordinance for ever.
In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even."

Now, note if you will, the first month and the first day of that month is fixed. And the first day would be on the fourteenth.

Now, at Deuteronomy 16:1, you will see basically the same truth:

"Observe the month of Abib, and keep the passover unto the LORD thy God: for in the month of Abib the LORD thy God brought thee forth out of Egypt by night."

And, verse 3:

"Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith, even the bread of affliction; for thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt in haste: that thou mayest remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life."

Now, verse 8:

"Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread: and on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly to the LORD thy God: thou shalt do no work therein."

Now, God says, 'your first month is going to be the month of Abib--the first day of your month is going to be Abib fourteenth. That's how you're going to start your religious, or your sacred, or your spiritual year. So the fourteenth day of Abib, was in essence, the very first day of their year--every year. What does that mean? It means this. That if the date is constant, the day changes. It's just like your birth date. My birth date is September the Third. If September the Third fell on Tuesday this year, what day will September the Third fall on next year. Wednesday!--and the next year on Thursday--and the next year on Friday. So if the date is constant, that means the day changes. Was Saturday a sabbath? Yes! Every seventh year. So was Monday, so was Tuesday, etc. It's just like our New Year's Day or our Thanksgiving Day. Since the date is fixed, New Year's Day may be on Friday this year, Saturday next year, etc. Since the date is constant, then the day changes.

Now, every day of the week then would have been a sabbath once every seven years. I want you to understand that there was a weekly sabbath, but there was also monthly sabbaths. I find it absolutely amazing that there are so many people that are interested in keeping the weekly sabbath, but they're not interested in keeping the monthly sabbath. Numbers, Chapter 28, tells you that the monthly, or the new moon sabbath, was a sabbath just like the weekly sabbath. On the new moon sabbath work was allowed, but sacrifices were mandatory. So there was not only a weekly sabbath, but there was a monthly sabbath, and may I remind you that there was a sabbatical year--once every seven years. So, that seventh year, the land rested, debts were forgiven, and slaves were freed. It was called a sabbatical year. But not only did you have a weekly sabbath, and a monthly sabbath and a sabbatical year, you had two more sabbatical years. You had the forty-ninth year, which was 7x7, and you had the year of Jubilee, which was the fiftieth year. On Jubilee, the land went back to the original owners or to those whom God had given it to originally.

So, you have a weekly sabbath, a monthly sabbath, a yearly sabbath, and then on the forty-ninth and fiftieth year, you have two years of sabbath in a row. May I remind you that Passover, or The Feast of Unleavened Bread, according to the Book of Exodus, Chapter 12, lasted seven days and it also was counted as a sabbath. Also, if you'll read Leviticus, Chapter 23, you will find that the Feast of Weeks, or The Feast of Pentecost, was counted as a sabbath. Also, you will find there that The Feast of Tabernacles, which lasted seven days, was also counted as a sabbath. Each one of these was counted as sabbaths, in Israel. And each sabbath then, emphasized rest, and rejoicing, and faith. In these sabbaths, man ceased from his labor.

Has it ever occurred to you that there could be more than one sabbath in a week? Surely! Because Matthew 28:1 literally says, "Now in the end of the sabbath," and the word 'sabbath' there is plural. You could have a weekly sabbath, a new moon sabbath, and if the year fell right, the beginning of an annual sabbath, all in one week. So there was a possibility of having more than one sabbath a week.

The emphasis in the Bible, upon the sabbath, was rest. In other words, there were strict laws that enforced rest. For instance, the general law was that there was to be absolutely no work done on the sabbath. You'll find that in Exodus 34:21, Deuteronomy 5:12-15, Exodus 20:8-11, Leviticus 23:3, and Jeremiah 17:22. In Nehemiah 13:19, 'the gates were to be shut.' He said in Exodus 16:29, 'abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.' In the Book of Nehemiah at 13:15, asses were not to be laden or nor sheaves be brought in on the sabbath day. At Jeremiah 17:21-22, no burdens were to be born on the sabbath day. At Exodus 35:3, no fires were to be kindled on the sabbath day. At Numbers 15:32 & 35, no sticks or firewood could be gathered on the sabbath day. At Nehemiah 10:31 and 13:15, no food could be bought or sold on the sabbath day and no wine could be treaded in the presses.

There were some things that could be done on the sabbath. For instance, life could be saved on the sabbath. But the whole emphasis on the sabbath day was-- it was to be a day of rest. There was to be absolutely no work done therein.

Now, here's the broad principle-- "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy." It was a day of rest. That's why God said 'any soul that did any work therein should be cut off from his people. He will be put to death.' To show you what undergirds this broad principle, we go to Numbers 15:30-36, where God says:

"But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
Because he hath despised the word of the LORD, and hath broken His commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.
And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses."

Now, here is a man that goes out on the sabbath day to gather sticks. Maybe it was a cold day and he was cold. I don't know! Maybe it was a warm day and he was just hungry, and he needed them to build a fire so he could cook himself something to eat. And so, the man is just simply out gathering sticks. The children of Israel find him, they put him in a ward, and God says 'the man is to be put to death.' You and I would think, 'why in the world is a man to be put to death for gathering a few sticks?' Well, I think you shall see the impact and the importance of that in just a little while.

Let me ask another question. If the church does not have the power to execute the death penalty for anyone who violates the sabbath, does that mean therefore that the death penalty for sabbath desecration is done away with?

Don't answer that out loud, because I'm going to show you that the death penalty for sabbath violation is still in effect. You say, 'how can that be?' I'll explain it in just a moment. Remember please, the principle of the sabbath was rest. Look in your Bible's to the Book of Hebrews, Chapter 4, verse 1, and let me show you what God says about rest:

"Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into His rest, any of you should seem to come short of it."

Note if will, the phrase 'His rest.' So we're talking about God's rest. And at verse 3:

"For we which have believed do enter into rest, as He said, As I have sworn in My wrath, if they shall enter into My rest:...."

Again we're talking about God's rest. And verse 4 talks about creation rest:

"For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works."

Now, here a reference to creation rest. When God rested on the seventh day He was commemorating and celebrating creation. So verse 4 then deals with the creation rest. And at verses 5 and 6 you shall see the Hebrew rest:

"And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:"

Now, what did God do when He brought the children of Israel out of Egypt? He delivered them! He brought them out from their bondage and their slavery. But, did many of those original individuals who were brought out of Egypt--did they enter in? No!! Because of their unbelief, they did not enter in. But, here was a Hebrew rest in that sense of the word when God was delivering--God was bringing the people out of Egypt.

The Exodus, or this Hebrew rest, then commemorates and celebrates deliverance from Egypt. And skipping down to verse 8, here is a Canaan rest. He says:

"For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day."

May I ask, in this verse--who is Jesus? Joshua, Savior. The word Jesus and the word Joshua are basically the same. So, literally, he is talking about Joshua. If Joshua had given them rest--in other Joshua took them into the land, Joshua led them in dominion, he led them to conquer the land, he led them in victory, he divided the land--but what he is telling us is, that this Canaan rest was not the real, genuine rest. The Canaan rest celebrated the victory and the dominion exercised over their enemies. But look if you will at verse 9:

"There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God."

Isn't that interesting? So, he's telling us that deliverance from Egypt was not the real rest. He's telling us that Canaan was not the real rest. No!!

Let me go a little bit further. The word 'rest' in the Greek language, is the Greek word 'sabbatismos.' So, in verse 9, he literally says that there remaineth therefore a sabbath for the people of God. And this sabbath is what you and I refer to as 'The Lord's Day.' Why? Because The Lord's Day commemorates and celebrates the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

Have you ever wondered why, out of The Ten Commandments, the only one not repeated in the New Testament is the Fourth Commandment? Let me explain why. Because the Old Testament sabbath was a shadow and a type, and that now vanishes when the real sabbath is here--and the real substance and the real essence of the sabbath is Jesus Christ.

Let me show you that. Turn in your Bible to the Book of Matthew, Chapter 12, beginning at verse 1:

"At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and His disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat."

Now, here's a statement that, at that time, Jesus went on the sabbath day and He and His disciples began to eat corn. Now, watch verse 2:

"But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto Him, Behold, Thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath [sabbaths] day."

The word 'sabbath' there is plural in the Greek. So, evidently it a habit of Christ and His disciples to eat and to pluck the grain on the sabbaths, or the only thing else you could say--it happens to be a week when there was not only a weekly sabbath but a new moon sabbath as well. There had to be at least two sabbaths in that week, or else He was doing it on a regular basis.

Now, at Matthew 28:1, I'm pointing out the importance of the plural words. Literally it says, "In the end of the sabbath[s]," (plural in the Greek). And by the way, the word 'end' is the Greek word 'opse,' which is translated as 'even' in Mark 11:19. You could read that, "in the evening of the sabbaths."

And at Luke 18:11-12:

"The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess."

The Greek word for 'week' there is the word 'sabbatismos.' He says, 'I fast twice on the sabbaths.' Now, in the Old Testament, the Hebrews normally only ate two meals a day. So, here's this Pharisee saying, 'Well, I don't even eat on the sabbath. I fast both meals. Look at me. I'm more spiritual than anyone else.' But, most importantly, the work 'week' is the word 'sabbaths.' I added that so that when you turn back to Matthew 28:1, watch carefully the literal translation: "In the end of the sabbath[s], as it began to dawn towards the first day of the [sabbaths]....' Wait a minute!! He's talking about ending sabbaths and now he's talking about the first day of the sabbaths. What in the world is he referring to?

May I remind you that the sabbath was a type, and an emblem, and a sign--that salvation is of The Lord. Now, at Ezekial 20:12, you will see the context is that of the deliverance of God:

"Moreover also I gave them My sabbaths, to be a sign between Me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them."

He says, 'I gave them My sabbaths, to be a sign.' That's what Deuteronomy 5:15 said that we read earlier. So, the sabbath basically taught the Sovereignty of God in Salvation.

Remember the essence of the sabbath was rest. Now, back to Matthew 28:1, watch closely, "In the end of the sabbath[s] [plural], as it began to dawn toward the first day of the [sabbaths]...." So actually, you could read Matthew 28:1 something similar to this: 'Now that the era of the Old Testament sabbaths had come to an end, in as much as Jesus, who was typified by those sabbaths, had finished His work and was now resting from His labors."

So, Matthew 28:1, then, is talking about a new era that is now inaugurated by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In fact when you look at Matthew 28:1, the word 'first' in the Greek is the feminine word 'mia.' It means 'number one.' So literally what he was saying is this: 'In the end of the sabbaths, as it began to dawn toward the number one day of the sabbaths...' So, here is a new era being instituted. Now, to Mark 16:2:

"And very early in the morning the first day of the week..."

The word 'week' there in the Greek is 'sabbatismos,' plural (sabbaths). So, we have 'the first day of the sabbaths.' The word 'first' here is not the feminine Greek 'mia.' The word 'first' here is the Greek word 'protos.' You say, 'Brother Weaver, what in the world does 'protos' mean?' It means 'prototype.' It's the first one of all those that are going to follow. So, literally what he says in verse 2 is this: 'And very early in the morning the prototype, the very first day of the sabbaths, they came unto the sepulcher at the rising of the sun.' So Jesus Christ is inaugurating a new era.

Now, at John 19:30, "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, He said, It is finished: and He bowed His head, and gave up the ghost." It is finished!! What was He saying? He's saying, 'the old has been done away with; I have finished salvation, and I am inaugurating the new.

And at Mark 16:9, he says, "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week [sabbaths], He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven devils." Again, 'the first day of the sabbaths.' And again at Luke 24:1, "Now upon the first day of the week [sabbaths], very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them." Note, again 'upon the very first day of the sabbaths.' And again at John 20:1, he says, "The first day of the week [sabbaths] cometh Mary Magdalene early..." Over and over, in all of the Gospels, the Word of God is telling us that Jesus Christ inaugurated a new set, or different kind of sabbaths.

With that in mind, we now can understand why the apostle Paul wrote what he did in Colossians 2:16 & 17. What Paul is telling us is that the old order has passed away and a new order has been inaugurated by Jesus Christ. He says this:

"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."

Why would Paul say, 'don't let anyone judge you now in respect of a holyday, or a sabbath, or a new moon...'? All of these are sabbaths that he's talking about. He then says, 'I'll tell you why; because we now have the substance, of all of those Old Testament types and emblems, and that the substance is Jesus Christ, Himself. He is the reality. He is the essence.'

So--in Jesus Christ--the Passover ends, and The Lord's Supper begins. Because The Bible says in 1 Corinthians 5:7, "For even our passover is sacrificed for us:" In Christ, circumcision ends, and baptism begins. In Christ, The Old Testament sabbaths ended, and The New Testament sabbaths began.

Let's make some applications. Remember please, that the essence of the sabbath was rest. Remember what he said in Hebrews 4:9, 'there remaineth therefore a rest for the people of God." Remember, the weekly cessation of man from his labors was not the true rest. It was to typify, emblify, and symbolize something. Remember, the Hebrew deliverance from Egypt was not the real rest; it was to typify and symbolize something. Remember, the Canaan rest was not the real rest; it was to typify and symbolize something. You say, "Brother Weaver, what is the real rest?" The answer: Jesus Christ said,

"Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."
"Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls."

Jesus Christ is the true rest. Do you know what the apostle Paul wrote in 2 Thessalonians 1:7? He says, "And to you who are troubled rest with us." Because Christ is the real rest. In Christ, we cease from all of our labors, we cease from all of our works, we cease from all of our efforts. Dear friends, we are not trying to be saved. We have been saved!!!; by the personal work of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ said, "It is finished." And we rest in Him!!! Because Christ, and Christ alone, is salvation!!! And spiritual rest is the beginning of every kind of rest.

Now you say, "Brother Weaver, wait a minute. I heard you say something earlier about the death penalty for sabbath violation is still in effect." That's true!! It is. Just because the church does not have the power to execute the death penalty, does not mean that God has relinquished His power to execute the death penalty. At 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9, we see the power:

"And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels,
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power;"

What is Christ going to do? Christ is going to execute the penalty for sabbath violation on all of those who do not rest in Him!!! And at Proverbs 8:35 & 36: Here is Jesus Christ, who is Wisdom personified, for 1 Corinthians, Chapter 1, tells us that Jesus Christ is made unto us, Wisdom. Note what Wisdom personified says:

"For whoso findeth Me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD.
But he that sinneth against Me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate Me love death."

Is the death penalty still in effect? Yes!!! Oh, yes!!! For, all that hate Jesus Christ will have death.

I want you to understand that we, who are in Christ, keep the sabbath seven days a week. Not one day a week.

Now, look in Matthew 6:24-33, where Our Lord says:

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
"Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
"Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
"Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
"And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
"And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
"Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?
"Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
"(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."

This is an excellent passage against anxiety. More specifically, against worry. You say, "What in the world does that have to do with the sabbath?" It has everything to do with the sabbath. Let me give you an illustration. Let us suppose that you have no food in your house. You're hungry. What in the world should you do? Very clearly, the very first thing you want to do is ask your Heavenly Father. The second thing you want to do is to get out and find you some work, or find some means or some way of making some money. Then, when you find that work, you are to do it to the best of your; for God's honor; for God's glory; in faith; and then rest. And wait for God to work it out where you can have everything that you need. What did He say?, "Your Heavenly Father knoweth what things you have need of." If I have a bill that's coming due in 30 days, what should I do? First of all, I should ask my Heavenly Father to supply that need. Secondly, I should do everything I can; save every penny I can; work as much as I can--for God's honor and for God's glory, in faith --and then rest. Why? Because I can't do anything about the future. I can't even control the present. Can I? No!! Neither can you!! What do you do? You rest! Why? Because Jesus Christ is our sabbath.

Do I continue to worry about it? No. There's nothing I can do. I can only wait until God works in His heart. What am I doing? I'm keeping the sabbath. Why? Because I'm resting in the only One who can work things out. I've fulfilled my responsibility. I've done all that I can do, in faith and obedience. Now it's up to Christ. Why? Because Christ is our sabbath.

All they that hate Him, love death. And all of those who refuse to rest in Him, will be executed, for their failure to rest in Christ.

An audio tape set of the conference, which includes this sermon, can be acquired by writing to The church at Kaweah, P. O. Box 75, Kaweah, California. For additional information call 209-561-0802. For information on Pastor Weaver's tape set on 'The Christian Doctrine of Biblical Warfare,' write to Dominion Tape Library, P. O. Box 684, Hephzibah, Ga. [30815].

"Only want or defect of will, will protect the doer of a forbidden act from the punishment annexed thereto. An involuntary act induces no guilt; the concurrence of the will, when it has its choice to do or to avoid an act, being the only thing that renders human action either praiseworthy or culpable. To make a crime complete there must be both a will and an act. As no temporal tribunal can search the heart or fathom the intentions of the mind, otherwise than as demonstrated by outward actions, it cannot punish what it cannot know. To constitute a crime against human laws, there must be a vicious will and an unlawful act consequent thereon. 4 Bl. Com. 20-22, (1765).

Willful

"In common parlance 'willful' means intentional, as distinguished from accidental or involuntary; in penal statutes it means with evil intent, with legal malice, without ground for believing the act to be lawful." United States v. Three Railroad Cars, 1 Abb. U.S. 201 (1868).

"Referring to an act forbidden by law, [willful] means that the act must be done knowingly and intentionally--that with knowledge the will consented to, designed and directed the act." Woodhouse v. Rio Grande R. Co., 67 Tex. 419 (1887).

"Willful. Proceeding from a conscious motion of the will; voluntary; knowingly; deliberate. Intending the result which actually comes to pass; designed; intentional; purposeful; not accidental or involuntary.

"Premeditated; malicious; done with evil intent, or with a bad motive or purpose, or with indifference to the natural consequences; unlawful; without legal justification.

"The power of the mind which directs the action of a man.

"The ordinary meaning of 'willful,' in statutes, is not merely 'voluntary,' but with a bad purpose." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition (1990), page 1599.

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

Beautiful Illustration

Some time ago, a few ladies were reading the third chapter of Malachi: "Behold, I will send My messenger, and he shall prepare the way before Me," &c. One of the ladies gave it as her opinion, that the fuller's soap, and the refiner of silver, were only the same image, intended to convey the same view of the sanctifying influences of the grace of Christ.

"No," said another, "they are not just the same image; there is something remarkable in the expression in the third verse: 'He shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver.'" They all said, that this might be so.

This lady was going into town, and she promised to see a silver-smith, and report to them what he said on the subject. She went, without telling him the object of her errand, and begged to know the process of refining silver; which he fully described to her.

"But do you sit, sir?"

"O, yes, madam, I must sit, with my eye steadily fixed on the furnace; since, if the silver remain too long, it is sure to be injured."

She at once saw the beauty, and the comfort, too, of the expression, "He shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver." Christ sees it needful to put his children into the furnace; but he is seated by the side of it. His eye is steadily intent on the work of purifying, and His wisdom and His love are both engaged to do all in the best manner for them. Their trials do not come at random; the very hairs of their head are all numbered.

As the lady was returning to tell her friends what she had heard, just as she turned from the shop door, the silversmith called her back, and said that he had forgotten to mention one thing; and that was, that he only knew that the process of purifying was complete by seeing his own image in the silver.

When Christ sees His image in His people, His work of purifying is accomplished.

Christ stilling the Tempest

It was the lone hour of the night. The disciples had entered into a ship with their Master, and were pleasantly sailing upon the sea of Tiberias. Jesus was asleep in the vessel. But suddenly the smooth water was changed into a wild waste of foaming surge. Clouds, black and heavy, came upon the sky, borne on the rising wind. Darkness threw a mantle of gloom over the moon and the stars. Billows, heaving, beat against the lowering sky. The wild whistle of the blast, the "voice of many waters," and the cries of the pale mariners answered to the rattling thunder. The creaking of the mast, the snapping of the whole ship, sounded like death-knells to the terrified fishermen. The spirit of destruction rode upon the tempest, hurling abroad red bolted terrors. The ship now rose upon the high waves, tossed into the clouds, then plunged into the yawning caverns of the deep. The disciples, trembling alive to their danger, ran with haste to Jesus, and, rousing Him from His sweet slumbers, said, "Lord save us, we perish?" Then He arose, and stood upon the prow of the sinking bark. Behold Him, as the lightning blazes, 'midst the furry and darkness of the storm, wet with the dashing spray, and His raven locks streaming in the fierce wind! With a loud voice He rebuked the raging tempest, and said to the mountain floods which were breaking over Him, "Peace, be still!" Then the proud thunder stole into the cave of silence, the lightning buried itself in the bosom of the dark clouds, and both fled on swift pinions. The foaming billows laid themselves down to rest, "and there was a great calm." Was He a mere man, whom the wind and the sea obeyed. No. "Thou, O Lord of Hosts, rulest the raging of the sea, when the waves thereof arise, thou stillest them." God was there in the majesty of His power.

Issue the Twenty-third

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

The Spin Doctors Strike Again...

The county clerk--The Unknown Wizard Behind the Curtain, Part Two...

Civil Rights, Lawyers, and Abortion, Part Three...

Exercising Your Right of Avoidance, Part Five...

Before the counsel of the ungodly!

The Spin Doctors Strike Again

Over the course of the past four years, the media has put many-a-spin on what the Christian Jural Society is and may become. We have never made it a habit of answering these spin doctors and critics on this subject because it becomes a distraction from what our main purpose is. But it has come to our attention that a book published in 1997 has been filed with The Library of Congress, containing a section on Christian Jural Societies, titled "Christian Reconstruction," with our Christian appellations therein. A book so filed becomes a 'public record,' therefore we believe it our Christian duty to rebut it. It's also our hope that all jural society members that read the following will be edified by the rebuttal and commentary by The King's Men.

The title and author will remain unidentified for the reason: we do not wish to promote the sales of a book that spins demons.

That which follows this introduction is the full text from that section, which begins at page 209 of The Library of Congress catalog book #ISBN 0-8133-3292-3, and is subtitled, "WHY OKLAHOMA CITY IS ONLY THE BEGINNING." Its author claims to have written articles for The New York Times and that he is a "journalist" for a major midwest newspaper.

Our comments and rebuttal follow the book text.

Christian Reconstruction

A Jural Society is an organized political community and a synonym of "nation," "state," and "country." It is founded in the general sense on the Law of God from Whom it derives its authority and right to exist in the protection of life, liberty, and property, in the preservation of the Christian way of life.

--An Introduction to the Christian Jural Society in California.

"The loss of the American union of states based upon the Constitution for the United States took place on April 15, 1861. Since that date, there has been no legal government in the United States." That's the claim of the Christian Jural Society, one of the least-known yet most significant organizations in the antigovernment movement to date.

The Christian Jural Society is the logical end product of dominionist Christianity. It's an attempt by dominionist Christians to "reconstruct" a Christian government throughout the United States by creating small pockets of self-governing Christians who are tied to a national Christian government through their chosen representatives. Jural societies believe that they are the only legitimate form of government now operating in America. As the jural societies proliferate throughout the country, they are doing more to pull the 10 to 15 million soft-core, dominionist Christians deeper into the antigovernment funnel than any previous manifestation of the antigovernment movement. If they continue to grow--and all indications are that they will--they could become the most powerful force within the movement.

I first heard about the Christian Jural Society in late 1994, shortly after its formation, but I had rarely met anyone who claimed to be a part of the organization. By 1996, that had changed. Every sizable "anti" function I attended was increasingly made up of people in jural societies. By the time I reached the Third Continental Congress meeting in Kansas City in 1996, it had become clear that the Christian Jural Society was growing like a weed and had become a dominant force in the movement. Several of the delegates in Kansas City were the representatives of jural societies.

Jural societies have, to a large degree, been flying under the radar of those who monitor the radical Right. One reason is that, unlike militias, they shun publicity. Jural societies have a hard-and-fast rule: Don't talk to the press.

The Christian Jural Society is the brainchild of a religious Right think tank based in California and known as the "King's Men." The society's leaders are John Quade, Randy Lee, and John Joseph. John Quade, an actor whose film credits include Clint Eastwood's Every Which Way but Loose and Every Which Way You Can, as well as The Sting and the miniseries Roots, serves as the societies front man. He travels the country, holding well attended seminars on how to establish a jural society.

Regional jural societies are made up of approximately 100 families--that's the number recommended in the group's handbook, The Book of the Hundreds. Each society becomes a self-governing entity, based somewhat on an updated version of the Posse Comitatus model. Their seminar information states: "Since the existing governments are de facto and without true law, once the jural society is formed it becomes the ultimate civil authority in the county.... It is a Christian body, based on God's Law, the lex non scripta (common law)."

The jural societies are completely self-sufficient. Their court system includes an ecclesiastical court to handle interpretation of scripture, a court of assizes to handle civil matters under common law, and a grand jury to investigate charges brought before it. Each jural society has its own enforcement arm, referred to as the lawful Posse Comitatus. The Posse Comitatus serves the courts as needed by bringing in witnesses or by enforcing sentences.

Jural societies elect officers who serve as their representatives at the state and national level of the jural society. The local or county jural society is considered to be the most powerful level of government, with the national being the least powerful.

As the name would imply, the Christian Jural Society is designed to be exclusively for Christians--non-Christians are not allowed to join under any circumstances. To be a voting member of a jural society, a person must file papers terminating all other voter registration. Once a person joins a jural society, as thousands have, it becomes the only form of government in his or her life.

The ultimate goal of the jural society is to create a national government for all Christians, with Jesus at the head of that government. Jural societies believe that this must be accomplished before Jesus returns to earth. As with the other apocalyptic antigovernment movement, people in the jural society feel a sense of urgency to accomplish their goal before the year 2000.

Jural societies are driven largely by end-of the-world conspiracy theories. The mission statement for the American Jural Society of Cuyahoga County, Ohio, reads:

Our goal is to restore our Republic, as secured by the Constitution for the united states of America [sic] 1787, and the Bill of Rights of 1789, and the Ordinance of 1787, and the moral basis upon which these were founded, so that our children, and the generations not yet born, will know that they are the people of posterity, unencumbered by the oppression that is now at our front door. God bless the Republic. Death to the New World Order. We shall prevail!

Although it's still unclear just how violent the jural societies will become in their effort to be self-governed, there is evidence that the most radical forces in the antigovernment movement are already influencing them. Several of the jural society members I've met are Identity believers, whose concept of justice is a rope and a tree. When I telephoned the Cuyahoga Jural Society to follow up on an earlier interview, I was told that no one there could speak to me, and it was suggested that I direct my questions to Mark Koernke, one of the antigovernment movement's most radical leaders. Koernke was picked up by authorities immediately following the Oklahoma City bombing and is said to have ties to Timothy McVeigh. He was later released by authorities.

If the jural societies are being controlled by leaders like Koernke, who have long called for the execution of judges and other officials, then they may pose the greatest antigovernment threat to date.

---------------[end]---------------

Rebuttal and Comments

"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn." Proverbs 29:2

The deliberate effort on the part of the author to link the Christian Jural Societies to the lawless militias is a sad piece of writing. The spin fails if one analyzes the situation with a keen eye. The first half of the section covers "The Christian Jural Society" and he then ends with the secular "American Jural Society of Cuyahoga County, Ohio" and its purported connection to Mark Koernke. It soon becomes obvious that the main purpose for the authors coverage of The Christian Jural Society movement in his book was to fix in the reader's mind that Christian Jural Societies are "antigovernment" and a terrorist threat. We are unaware of a "Cuyahoga Jural Society," and we have never talked to, or been in contact, with Mark Koernke.

The facts of history bear out his ignorance--Christians love lawful governments, and shun unlawful governments. This is shown by the erection of Cromwell's Republic, whose Christian foundations were continued for the erection of the original Christian republics in America. And where did they find the model for the Cromwell Republic? In the Old Testament!

The weak window of opportunity he finds to link the militias to the Christian Jural Societies is probably found in The Book of the Hundreds on page 139 where it is stated, "Issue process or some formal procedure to provide the protection of Lawful civil process to local militia and posse comitatus (where Lawfully formed) in such a way as to provide them the protection of Lawful civil authority." To date we know of no militia or posse comitatus group that is Lawfully formed. Some groups probably believe they are, but until they come under a Lawful Christian government, they are utterly lawless and will be treated as such by the current de facto government. History shows that the only purpose of the militia is to protect the church.

In addition, we believe that 'The American Jural Society of Cuyahoga County, Ohio" is a literary creation of the author, based on the following: Earlier in his writing, he makes the statement that jural societies "...shun publicity. Jural societies have a hard-and-fast rule: Don't talk to the press." He then tells the reader that he called the Cuyahoga Jural Society "to follow up on an earlier interview."

So, you see that bearing false witness always creates contradictions that the humanist mind has not the ability to recognize or control.

The other important agenda for linking his Cuyahoga creation and "other jural society members I have met," to Christian Jural Societies, is the stigma of "Identity believers" with there 'rope and tree.' Those who have read the Christian Jural Society News article 'Venting the Spleen on Blue Widgets' from Issue the Eighth know that the position of The King's Men on Identity 'theology' is that 'it' should be shunned and avoided like the plague.

He also states that, "The ultimate goal of the jural society is to create a national government for all Christians, with Jesus at the head of that government. Jural societies believe that this must be accomplished before Jesus returns to earth. As with the other apocalyptic antigovernment movement, people in the jural society feel a sense of urgency to accomplish their goal before the year 2000."

Where the above convoluted diatribe came from we'll never know. First of all, Christ has been the head of His church from the beginning. We know of no 'rapture fever, scare and share' mentality or 'urgency', as above expressed, in any Christian Jural Society. He's probably a friend of Hal Lindsey and got his conversations mixed up.

It is also curious that out of the "10 to 15 million" Christian Recontructionists in America and their numerous organizations, the author would only include The Christian Jural Societies under that heading. Could it be that his intent was to steer these "dominionist Christians" away from the idea of Lawful government in Christian Jural Societies by demonizing them and making them appear to be linked with Identity 'theology,' 'end-of-the-worlders,' 'the militias,' 'the radical Right,' 'the religious Right,' 'the Posse Comitatus,' and other such, according to his spin, 'antigovernment' groups.

His agenda strives to demonize those who work toward true law reform, such as The King's Men and other Christian Reconstructionists, who seek to avoid chaos and anarchy. It appears to be very important to him to keep the 'war' going, for 'government' sake.

It is also curious that he is aware of The Book of the Hundreds (which of course he misquotes), but instead chooses to use earlier material long since rewritten and other 'stuff' written by who knows who.

And the spin just keeps on coming.

The reference that "Jural societies have, to a large degree, been flying under the radar of those who monitor the radical Right," is another subliminal attempt to make it appear that jural societies, in some way, are "radical." He expectedly, like all media, fails to define exactly what 'radical Right' and 'religious Right' mean. The author appears to have no clue about what Law is, Who brought it in to being and gave it to us, who is appointed to execute that Law, and what Blessings will flow when Lawfully executed. In other words, the author is not interested in Law, but is more interested in sowing seeds of discord wherever he might find fertile ground.

He calls the Christian Jural Society "the brainchild of a religious Right think tank based in California and known as the "King's Men" and that "the society's leaders are John Quade, Randy Lee, and John Joseph. Firstly, we are not the 'leaders,' and have always spoken against creating a hierarchy. Earthly hierarchies are for the natural man, and Christ is already the Head of the church from the beginning. Secondly, it is not the 'brainchild' of the King's Men, for that pre-supposes that the King's Men are non-Christians--a libel. We know that God alone has power to create and destroy at His good pleasure.

He of course doesn't bother to mention, as it is pointed out in The Book of the Hundreds, that the Christian Jural Societies are the same as The Hundreds of England and early America. A Christian Republic instead of a Marxist Democracy? Wow, that is really radical!! (and Right, too).

Christians have no problem with governments, lawfully formed, having a lineage traceable to the Tree of Life, and not to any other source. Christians, as a matter of Law, are the only ones who have warrant in Law to establish governments--natural persons are still in the cave, where the maxim of the lawless prevails--"might makes right; steal to get ahead; greed is love, peace and charity--as long as it's done equally, and democratically."

Evidently the author would rather wear those chaffing golden handcuffs fashioned by a Marxist Democracy than live in the Liberty of Christ.

The shortsightedness of the natural man is what has brought him to the chasm of disintegration he now faces. A decision must be made--can the natural man's 'reason' save him from the doom or chasm he created? The author appears to believe so. It is one thing to criticize others, but quite another to offer a truthful solution. Fear, natural reason, and apathy is all the author seems to offer. Why is that? Synaptic shorts? Epistemological myopia? He clearly tries to breed fear and scatter, where Christendom seeks to gather in the love of Christ and our Father.

In the first century A.D., in an attempt to subvert Christianity, Emperor Nero accused Christians of using babies in sacrificial rites that they had rescued from the abortion dumps of Rome. Because the Roman people knew the real truth--that they were rescuing them to raise them as Christians--Christianity flourished.

In the future as in the past, when the opportunity presents itself, humanistic writers, authors, and politicians will take every opportunity to demonize Christians and Christian Jural Societies, because it suits their purpose. It will probably happen in cases where one or two militia members run into trouble with the 'law,' and they will try to link them to a 'jural society' somewhere. Or, perhaps, a Christian Jural Society will take on a member whose main purpose is to subvert that society. That has already happened to a small degree in a few societies. As the Christian Jural Society movement continues to grow, problems will be brought into it from outside sources. That is a given.

Woe to those that seek to destroy what God has ordained in His Word, "Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it;...,"; and which the history of America verifies: America was built on Christian Law, and not on any earthly religion reasoned by the natural man. The natural man seeks to deny the Power and Peace of God's Word, and to set up his own private domain, which ends in blood and destruction of life, liberty, and property. Lincoln's War and his new democracy/new nation is a typical example of that. Perhaps the author never read the Fall of the Roman Empire, Greek Empire, Persian Empire, and other such wars of destruction by the natural man's propensity in this direction due to his natural mind. He seems to contact reality only when it fits his particular scheme--on an "as needed basis."

Therefore, always keep in mind that members should act just as Christ did. Whenever and wherever a minister does any thing instructed by his Sovereign, the person with whom he meets does not see the minister, but the Sovereign who sent him. In the same manner, whenever a Good and Lawful Christian greets another, he acts in such a way that he is not seen, but Christ in him is seen. "The disciple is not above his master..." is the phrase that is applicable here. A disciple is one who lives the discipline of his master, and exhibits it to the world at large. The same is said of Christians, "for one is your master, even Christ."

The county clerk -

The Unknown Wizard Behind the Curtain

(continued from Issue the Twenty-second)

Executorship of Christ's Testament

"ADMINISTER. To manage the property of a person who dies intestate, i.e., without a will, or whose will incompletely disposes of his property, or whose will lacks a competent executor. [*"Faith without works is dead"] The purpose of administration is to distribute the property [*common wealth] to the persons entitled [*Good and Lawful Christians being joint-heirs in Christ]. The document granting the authority [*codes, rules, and regulations] under which this is done is called letters of administration." Radin, Law Dictionary (1955), p. 8. [Emphasis and insertions added.]
"ADMINISTRATOR (m); ADMINISTRATRIX (f). One who administers.
"1. In the law of succession, the person appointed by a court to distribute the property of a deceased intestate, or of a testator whose will has not been carried out because of the absence, disqualification, or death of the executor named in the will. See Administer.
"2. An administrative official in charge of a public office. See Administration, 1." Radin, Law Dictionary (1955), p. 9. [Emphasis added.]
"ADMINISTRATOR CUM TESTAMENTO ANNEXO. Lat. One appointed to carry out the terms of the will in the absence of a qualified executor." Radin, Law Dictionary (1955), p. 9. [Emphasis added.]

"8. Civil Action. A civil action has been variously defined
[Jefferson County v. Philpot, 66 Ark. 243, 245, 50 S.W. 453. See also cases infra this note, and notes 12-17. (A) Definitions.--"It is variously defined to be: 'The rightful method of obtaining in court what is due to any one: the lawful demand of one's right in a court of justice; the lawful demand of one's rights in the form given by law; the form of a suit given by law for the recovery of that which is one's due; the lawful demand of one's rights; a remedial instrument of justice, whereby redress is obtained for any wrong committed or right withheld; any judicial proceeding which, conducted to a termination, will result in a judgment.'" Winfield Adj. Words & Phrases, p. 16 quot. Jefferson County v. Philpot, 66 Ark. 243, 245, 50 S.W. 453. (2) "A civil action is defined to be 'the legal demand of one's right'" Pettis v. Pomfret, 28 Conn. 566, 570. (3) "A civil action is one prosecuted for the establishment or recovery of a right, or the prevention of a wrong, or the redress of an injury." 1 Wait Act. & Def. 10, quot. McPike v. McPike, 10 Ill.A. 332, 334; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Bemis, 64 Oh.St. 26, 30, 59 N.E. 745. (4) It is an action wherein an issue is presented for trial, formed by the averments of the complaint, and the denials of the answer, or the replication to new matter, and the trial takes place by the introduction of legal evidence to support the allegations of the pleadings, and a judgment in such an action is conclusive upon the rights of the parties, and could be plead in bar." Evans v. Evans, 105 Ind. 204, 210, 5 N.E. 24, 768; Deer Lodge County v. Kohrs, 2 Mont. 66, 70. To same effect Berry v. Berry, 147 Ind. 176, 179, 46 N.E. 470. (B) In the civil law.--"A personal action, which is instituted to compel payment, or the doing something which is purely civil." Bouv.L.D. quot. Iowa v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 37 Fed. 497, 498, 3 L.R.A. 554; State v. Riley, 203 Mo. 175, 186, 101 S.W. 567, 12 L.R.A.N.S. 900.]

as an action to enforce a private or civil right or to redress a private wrong;
[Rapalje & L. L. D. quot. State v. Union Trust Co., 70 Mo.A. 311, 317. Similar definitions.--(1) "An action is 'civil' when it lies to enforce a private right, or redress a private wrong." Rapalje & L. L. D. quot. Gruetter v. Cumberland Tel., etc., Co., 181 Fed. 248, 251. (2) "The term 'civil action,' as used in statutes, has been held to be 'a proceeding in a court of justice by one party against another for the enforcement of a private right or the redress of a private wrong." Thrift v. Thrift, 30 R.I. 357, 363, 75 A. 484. (3) "A process for the recovery of individual right or redress of individual wrong." Standard Jud. D. 130 quot. State v. Union Trust Co., 70 Mo.A. 311, 317. (4) "An action is a demand of a right in a court of justice. A civil action is a like demand by a person of a civil right." State v. One Bottle of Brandy, 43 Vt. 297, 298.]

an action which has for its object the recovery of private or civil rights or compensation for their infraction;
[Bouv. L.D. quot. Gruetter v. Cumberland Tel., etc., Co., 181 Fed. 248, 251; Iowa v. Chicago, tec., R. Co., 37 Fed. 497, 498, 3 L.R.A. 554; Capital City Water Co. v. State, 105 Ala. 406, 422, 18 S. 62, 29 L.R.A. 743; State v. Riley, 203 Mo. 175, 186, 101 S.W. 567, 12 L.R.A.N.S. 900 and note; In re Farnum, 51 N.H. 376, 383; Scott v. State, 6 Tex.Civ.A. 343, 344, 25 S.W. 337; State v. Schomber, 23 Wash. 573, 575, 63 P. 221; State v. Frost, 113 Wis. 623, 641, 88 N.W. 912, 89 N.W. 915; Standard Jud. D. quot. State v. Union Trust Co., 70 Mo.A. 311, 316.]

an action brought to recover some civil right, or to obtain redress for some wrong, not being a crime or misdemeanor.
[Burrill L.D. quot. Gruetter v. Cumberland Tel., etc., Co., 1812 Fed. 248, 251; Iowa v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 37 Fed. 497, 498, 3 L.R.A. 554.]

In some jurisdictions the term has been defined by statute.
[(A) Statutory definitions.--"A civil action is an ordinary proceeding in a court of justice by one party against another for the enforcement of a private right or the redress or prevention of a private wrong." Nelson v. Sowling, 89 Ark. 334, 116 S.W. 890; Jefferson County v. Philpot, 66 Ark. 243, 245, 50 S.W. 453. (2) "A civil action is one founded on private rights, arising from contract or tort." Western Union Tel. Co. v. Taylor, 84 Ga. 408, 418, 11 S.E. 396, 8 L.R.A. 189. (3) "A civil action is a proceeding in a court of justice in which one party known as the plaintiff demands against another party known as the defendant the enforcement or protection of a private right, or the prevention or redress of a private wrong." Whitney v. Atlantic Southern R. Co., 53 Iowa 651, 652, 6 N.W. 32; State v. Clarke, 46 Iowa 155, 158. See also In re Bresee, 82 Iowa 573, 577, 48 N.W. 991. (4) "A civil action is a demand by pleadings in a court of justice for the enforcement of an alleged right of a plaintiff against a defendant." Ames v. Kansas, 111 U.S. 449, 460, 4 S.Ct. 437, 28 L.Ed. 482; Prentice v. Weston, 47 Hun.(N.Y.) 121, 124, aff'd 111 N.Y. 460, 18 N.E. 720; Maben v. Rosser, 24 Okl. 588, 598, 103 P. 674.]

The precise meaning and application of the term must sometimes be determined not by its general definition, but according to the manner in which it is used in the particular case,
[Howard v. Proprietors Merricmac River Locks, etc., 12 Cush.(Mass.) 259, 263. "It is in all cases dangerous, to take particular expressions, applicable to the subject under consideration, and to treat them, as general words, affording rules and definitions applicable to all cases. The precise meaning of the descriptive term 'civil actions,' must be judged by its connections and the manner in which it is used in the particular case." Howard v. Proprietors Merricmac River Locks, etc., 12 Cush.(Mass.) 259, 263.]

for a proceeding may be in a general civil, and yet not within the application of certain laws relating to civil actions.
[Lucas v. Lucas, 3 Gray(Mass.) 136, 138.]

As sometimes used the term 'civil action' is broader than 'civil case.'
[Powell v. Powell, 104 Ind. 18, 21, 3 N.E. 639.]

Ordinarily the term 'civil action' is used in contradistinction to 'criminal action,'
[Rison v. Cribbs, 20 F.Cas.No. 11,860, 1 Dill. 181, 184; Kramer v. Rebman, 9 Iowa 114, 118; Landers v. Staten Island R. Co., 53 N.Y. 450, 456. "A civil action is brought to recover some civil right, or to obtain redress for some wrong, not being a crime or misdemeanor, and is thus distinguished from a criminal action or prosecution." Landers v. Staten Island R. Co., 53 N.Y. 450, 456. "A civil action is instituted for the purpose of enforcing a private or civil right, or to redress a private wrong, as distinguished from actions instituted to punish crimes which are known as 'criminal actions.'" Fenstermacher v. State, 19 Or. 504, 506, 25 P. 142.]

'criminal cause,'
[Livingston v Story, 9 Pet.(U.S.) 632, 657, 9 L.Ed. 255.]

or 'prosecution,'
[U.S. v. Ten Thousand Cigars, 28 F.Cas.No. 16,451, Woolw. 123, 125; Landers v. Staten Island R. Co., 53 N.Y. 450, 456; Fenstermacher v. State, 19 Or. 504, 506, 25 P. 142.]

in which sense it includes all actions which are not criminal,
[Curry v. Marvin, 2 Fla. 411, 417; Smith v. Burnet, 35 N.J.Eq. 314, 320. "The term civil actions would, from its natural import, embrace every species of suits which is not of a criminal kind." Curry v. Marvin, 2 Fla. 411, 417 quot Wiscart v. Dauchy, 3 Dall.(U.S.) 321, 328, 1 L.Ed. 619.]

and therefore in- [*931] cludes suits in equity as well as actions at law.
[Livingston v. Story, 9 Pet.(U.S.) 632, 656, 9 L.Ed. 255; Rison v. Cribbs, 20 F.Cas.No. 11,860, 1 Dill. 181, 184; Kramer v. Rebman, 9 Iowa 114, 118; Smith v. Burnet, 35 N.J.Eq. 314, 320.]

In a general sense [Lamson v. Hutchings, 118 Fed. 321, 323, 55 C.C.A. 245.] the phrase 'civil actions' includes actions at law, suits in chancery, proceedings in admiralty, and all other judicial controversies in which rights of property are involved,
[U.S. v. Ten Thousand Cigars, 28 F.Cas.No. 16,451, Woolw. 123, 125; Fenstermacher v. State, 19 Or. 504, 506, 25 P. 142. To same effect Lamson v. Hutchings, 118 Fed. 321, 323, 55 C.C.A. 245. "The words 'civil action,' as used in the statutes, include all legal proceedings partaking of the nature of a suit and designed to determine the rights of private parties." Bryant v. Glidden, 36 Me. 36, 44.]

whether between private parties, or such parties and the government.
[U.S. v. Ten Thousand Cigars, 28 F.Cas.No. 16,451, Woolw. 123, 125; Fenstermacher v. State, 19 Or. 504, 506, 25 P. 142. (A) Actions where the government is a party.--"The term 'civil action' is held to apply to actions in which the government is a party, as well as those between private persons." Green v. U.S., 9 Wall.(U.S.) 655, 658, 19 L.Ed. 806.]

The civil action of the code is a substitute for all such judicial proceedings as were previously known either as actions at law or suits in equity,
[Corry v. Lamb, 43 Oh.St. 390, 392, 2 N.E. 851; Chinn v. Fayette, 32 Oh.St. 236, 237; Larwell v. Burke, 19 Oh.Cir.Ct. 449, 473, 10 Oh.Cir.Dec. 605. See also Webb v. Stasel, 80 Oh.St. 122, 125, 88 N.E. 143.]

and includes all ordinary civil proceedings;
[Greeley v. Hamman, 12 Colo. 94, 99, 12 P. 1. "The term 'civil action' embraces every form and character of action at law, or suit in equity, that was known to legal jurisprudence prior to the enactment of the civil code. It embraces actions ex contractu, ex delicto, suits in equity, mixed actions, and all their various modifications." Hendrickson v. Brown, 11 Okl. 41, 43, 65 P. 935. "As used in the Practice Act, the term 'civil actions' is clearly intended to include actions demanding equitable or legal relief, or both." Ludington v. Merrill, 81 Conn. 400, 402, 72 A. 504.]

but not a proceeding which was never regarded either as an action at law or a suit in equity,
[Chinn v. Fayette, 32 Oh.St. 236, 237; Barger v. Cochran, 15 Oh.St. 460, 461.]

such as an extraordinary or supplementary remedy [Chinn v. Fayette, 32 Oh.St. 236, 237.]. Under the codes the term 'civil action' is ordinarily used in contradistinction to 'special proceeding'."1 C.J. 930-931 (1917).
[Roe v. Boyle, 81 N.Y. 305, 306; Matter of Rafferty, 14 App.Div. 55, 56, 43 N.Y.S. 760; Barger v. Cochran, 15 Oh.St. 460, 461. Actions and special proceedings distinguished and the terms considered with reference to particular actions and proceedings see infra 134.].

Take particular note of the terms "private," "civil law," "courts of justice," "property," and the like. These are key words with which you should become very familiar. These are all fictions from the Roman civil law, and not God's Law. I wish to distinguish at this time the difference between the common law stipulated to above and Christian common law. This distinction involves again the Source of the right exercised or claimed. The common law mentioned above was concerned with private rights involving property. This has numerous commercial overtones attached to it. It is so vague that I can tell you now to avoid it like the plague.

We can say with assurance that those actions which are not found in Roman civil law, i.e. the current statutory law, must be actions at Law, otherwise known as common law actions:

"9. Common-Law Action. A common-law action has been defined as an action allowed at common law and to bring which statutory authority is not necessary.
[English L.D. "Another definition.--"Common law actions are such as will lie, on the particular facts, at common law, without the aid of a statute." Black L.D. sub verb "Action."]

But the term is not always used in this sense.
[Kirby v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 106 Fed. 551, 555. Se also cases infra notes 34-36. (A) As otherwise defined.--"A civil suit, as distinguished from a criminal prosecution or a proceeding to enforce a penalty or a police regulation; not necessarily an action which would lie at common law." Black L.D. sub verb "Common Law."]

It is sometimes used merely in the sense of at law,
[Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet.(U.S.) 433, 447, 7 L.Ed. 732.]

in contradistinction to proceedings in equity and admiralty,
[Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet.(U.S.) 433, 447, 7 L.Ed. 732; Boyd v. Clark, 13 Fed. 908, 910; Bains v. The Schooner James, 2 F.Cas.No. 756, Baldw. 544; Baker v. Biddle, 2 F.Cas. 764, Baldw. 394; U.S. v. The Queen, 27 F.Cas.No. 16,107, 4 Ben. 237; Bradford v. Territory, 1 Okl. 366, 370, 34 P. 66. (A) The provision of the federal constitution in regard to the right of trial by jury in 'suits at common law" has reference not merely to suits which the common law recognizes among its old and settled proceedings, but to suits in which legal rights are to be ascertained and determined in contradistinction to proceedings in equity and admiralty. Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet.(U.S.) 433, 447, 7 L.Ed. 732.]

and in this sense is not limited to actions which could have been maintained at common law." 1 C.J. 931 (1917). [Emphasis added.]
[Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet.(U.S.) 433, 447, 7 L.Ed. 732; U.S. v. The Queen, 27 F.Cas.No. 16,107, 4 Ben. 237;]

We should distinguish between an "equitable action" and an action at Law:

"10. Equitable Action. An equitable action is an action founded on an equity or cognizable in a court of equity [Black L.D. sub verb "Equitable." (A) Legal action distinguished.--"Legal actions are designed to afford redress for injuries already inflicted and rights of persons or property actually invaded. Equitable actions, however, are not only remedial in their nature, but may also be brought for the purpose of restraining the infliction of contemplated wrongs or injuries and the prevention of threatened illegal action, which may be the occasion of serious injury to others." Thomas v. Musical Mut. Protective Union, 121 N.Y. 45, 51, 24 N.E. 24, 8 L.R.A. 175." 1 C.J. 931 (1917). [Emphasis added.]]

This certainly explains very little. But note, natural equity can be used to prevent or restrain--regardless of the Truth. Let's look closer at the word "equity" and see what this word actually means:

"EQUITY. A system of jurisprudence collateral to, and in some respects independent of, "law," properly so-called; the object of which is to render the administration of justice more complete, by affording relief where the courts of law are incompetent to give it, or to give it with effect, or by exercising certain branches of jurisdiction independently of them. This is equity in its proper sense; an elaborate system of rules and process, administered in many cases by distinct tribunals, (termed 'courts of chancery,') and with exclusive jurisdiction over certain subjects. It is 'still distinguished by its original and animating principle that no right should be without a remedy,' and its doctrines are founded upon the same basis of natural justice; but its action has become systematized, deprived of any loose and arbitrary character which might have belonged to it, and be carefully regulated by fixed rules and precedents as the law itself.

"Equity is a body of jurisprudence, or field of jurisdiction, differing in its origin, theory, and methods from the common law." Laird v. Unino Tractin Co., 208 Pa. 574, 57 A. 987." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 634. [Emphasis added.]

Still more vague except for one thing: the source and theory of equity is separate and distinct from actions at Law. Let us look a little further in to the nature of "equity jurisdiction":

"EQUITY JURISDICTION. 'Equity jurisdiction' in its ordinary acceptation, as distinguished on the one side from the generalpower to decide matters at all, and on the other from the jurisdiction 'at law' or 'common law jurisdiction,' is the power to hear certain kinds and classes of civil causes according to the principles of the method and procedure adopted by the court of chancery, and to decide them in accordance with the doctrines and rules of equity jurisprudence, which decision may involve either the determination of the equitable rights, estates, and interests of the parties to such causes, or the granting of equitable remedies. In order that a cause may come within the scope of the equity jurisdiction, one of two alternatives is essential: either the primary right, estate, or interest to be maintained, or the violation of which furnishes the cause of action, must be equitable rather than legal; or the remedy granted must be in its nature purely equitable, or if it be a remedy which may also be given by a court of law, it must be one which, under the facts and circumstances of the case, can only be made complete and adequate through the equitable modes of procedure. Norback v. Board of Directors of Church Extension Society, 84 Utah 506, 27 P.2d 339." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 635.

It is founded on competing private interests or rights in a thing or res, and not necessarily founded on a mutual contract. The action is not the same, the process is not the same, and the procedure is not the same. This falls under the administrative side of the county clerk, because of the following:

"CAUSA. Lat. A cause, reason, occasion, motive, or inducement." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 277.
"Causa et origo est materia negotii--The cause and origin is the substance of the thing; the cause and origin of a thing are a material part of it." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 278.

Thus if the reason or motive stems from any civil rights statute, then the cause is a "civil cause" and the action instituted for remedy is a "civil action." This is not what you are looking for.

Now back to actions at Law. Take particular notice that actions at Law need no specific statutory enactment to be real actions. They are founded on Law antedating the creation of legislative bodies. Just where can we find such Law? Certainly not in constitutions. It is found in only one place: the Word of God, the Scriptures. The problem most Christians have is in procedural Law, not in substantive Law. The procedural Law has been developed over hundreds of years while the substantive Law has existed since Genesis 1:1. This Law is specifically recognized in 12 Op. Atty.-Gen. 182 (1867):

"There can be no doubt as to the rule of construction according to which we must interpret this grant of power. It is a grant of power to military authority, over civil rights and citizens, in time of peace. It is a new jurisdiction, never granted before, by which, in certain particulars and for certain purposes, the established principle that the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority is reversed.
"The rule of construction to be applied to such a grant of power is thus stated in Dwarris on Statutes, p. 652: "A statute creating a new jurisdiction ought to be construed strictly." at page 187.

Notice, if you will, the limitation placed on the jurisdiction of the administrative side of the county clerk--"in certain particulars and for certain purposes." That does not say for all particulars and all purposes. We need to find the nature of this power granted and just described to us to determine the limits of its jurisdiction. This becomes very clear when we read the next page in the same opinion:

"To consider, then, in the first place, the terms of the grant. It is of a power to protect all persons in their rights of person and property [*this is the civil action]. It is not a power to create new rights, but only to protect those which exist and are established by the laws under which these people live [*thus we have the fact that if the people under Christian Law found in Scripture then the power must be exercised to protect those found in Scripture and vested in Christians]. It is a power to preserve, not to abrogate; to sustain the existing frame of social order and civil rule, and not a power to introduce military rule in its place; in effect, it is police power; and the protection here intended is protection of persons and property against violence, unlawful force, and criminal infraction [*thus we are back to Roman civil law protecting "persons" of its creation in the enjoyment of "property."]. It is given to meet the contingency recited in the preamble, of a want of "adequate protection for life and property" and the necessity also recited, "that peace and good order should be enforced." ibid., at page 188. [Emphasis and insertions added.]

That power is "police power," which necessarily governs all within the civil rights acts, and under which all actions are civil actions--administrative--not ministerial. This is easily seen in the following definition of police power:

"POLICE POWER. (bus) The authority of a state to legislate to protect public health, safety, morals [*religious and political question] and welfare [*benefits, privileges, and opportunities]--the constitutional basis for state labor legislation." A Dictionary of Business and Scientific Terms (2d. Ed., 1968), p. 322.

Notice, if you will, the police power affects business or commercial interests only. It does not affect those things which are not in commerce, which are inalienable and a perpetuity. Let us look into the restrictions on the police power:

"There are, of course, limitations upon the exercise of this power. The legislature cannot use it as a cover for withdrawing property [*vested rights of the Good and Lawful Christian] from the protection of the law, or arbitrarily, where no public right or interest is involved, declare [*that particular] property a nuisance for the purpose of devoting it to destruction." Lawton v. Steele (1890), 119 N.Y. 226, 23 N.E. 878, aff'd 152 U.S. 133.
"Moreover, a distinction must be observed between the regulation of an activity which may be engaged in as a matter of right, and one carried on by government sufferance or permission. In the latter case, the power to exclude altogether generally includes the lesser power to condition and may justify a degree of regulation not admissible in the former." Davis v. Massachusetts, 167 U.S. 43. [Emphasis added.]

Rights vested in Good and Lawful Christians by Almighty God, through our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, are the only rights addressable in actions at Law, not involving any legislation creating any right, nor can they be legislated against. See Billings v. Hall, supra.

We can say with full assurance that no vested rights which have a political consequence may be legislated against by those who wield the "police power" by or under military occupation. This is easily seen as well:

"The belligerent occupant of a country has right to make regulations for protection of occupant's military interests and the exercise of police powers, with correlative duty of maintaining public order and providing for preservation of rights of inhabitants of territory occupied. Hague Regulations, art. 1, 42-56, 43, 36 Stat. 2295." Aboitiz & Co. v. Price (1951), 99 F.Supp. 602, 610.
"In order for decrees and regulations of a belligerent occupant of another country's territory to be recognized as valid, such decrees and regulations must not be of a political complexion, but must be in the interest of the welfare of inhabitants of area occupied." Aboitiz & Co. v. Price (1951), 99 F.Supp. 602, 612-613.

A word of caution is in order here about this police power which should and does concern all Good and Lawful Christians:

"So, while the police power is one whose proper use makes most potently for good, in its undefined scope and inordinate exercise lurks no small danger to the republic. For the difficulty which is experienced in defining its just limits and bounds, affords a temptation to the legislature to encroach upon the rights of citizens with experimental laws, none the less dangerous because well meant." Ex parte Jentzsch (1896) 112 Cal. 468, 473. [Emphasis added.]

In Truth, these vested rights haven't been legislated against--Christians need to remember the old ways and forget constitutions being the source of any thing for them:

"What is a constitution, and what are its objects? It is easier to tell what it is not that what it is. It is not the beginning of a community [*the Scriptures are the beginning of a community--common unity in Christ], nor the origin of private rights; it is not the fountain of law [*God is the fountain of Law], nor the incipient state of government; it is not the cause, but consequence, of personal freedom and political freedom [*Jesus, the Christ, is the Cause and Origin of all Freedom and Liberty]; it grants no rights to the people [*they are vested by Almighty God through our Sovereign Lord and Saviour, Jesus, the Christ], but is the creature of their power, the instrument of their convenience. Designed for their protection in the enjoyment of the rights and powers which they possessed before the constitution was made, it is but the framework of the political government, and necessarily based upon the pre-existing condition of laws [*originating in Scripture], rights [*originating in God and vested through Jesus, the Christ], habits [*customs and usages from Scripture], and modes of thought [*Christian v. pagan]. There is nothing primitive in it: it is all derived from a known source [*Christianity]. It presupposes an organized society, law, order, property, personal freedom, a love of political liberty, and enough of cultivated intelligence to know how to guard it against the encroachments of tyranny. A written constitution is in every instance a limitation upon the powers of government in the hands of agents; for there never was a written republican constitution which delegated to functionaries all the latent powers which lie dormant in every nation, and are boundless in extent, and incapable of definition." Hamilton v. St. Louis County Court, 15 Mo. 13, per Bates, arguendo. And see Matter of Oliver Lee & Co.'s Bank, 21 N.Y. 9. [Emphasis and insertions added.]

This becomes all the more evident when we look further in to the Law:

"Allegiance, as we understand that term, is due to no Government. It is due the power that can rightfully make or change Governments [*Almighty God, through our Sovereign Lord and Saviour, Jesus, the Christ]. This is what is meant by the Paramount authority, or Sovereignty. Allegiance and Para- mount authority do go together; we agree in that. But there is a great difference between the supreme law of the land and the Paramount authority, in our system of government, as well as in all others. Obedience is due to the one, while allegiance is due to the other. Obedience to law, while it is law, or the Constitution, which is an organic law for the time being, and allegiance to the Paramount authority, which can set aside all existing laws, fundamental laws, Constitutions, as well as any others, are very different things." Alexander Stephens, Constitutional View of the War (1868), vol. I, p. 25. [Emphasis added.]

"Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his: And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding: He revealeth the deep and secret things: he knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him." Dan 2:20-22. [Emphasis added.]
"For promotion cometh neither from the east nor from the west, nor from the south. But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another." Ps 75:6-7. [Emphasis added.]

The keys then are to never:

-One, look to constitutions, codes, rules, regulations, or statutes for any thing, including a right of action, such as Title 42 lawsuits which are dismissed by the wave of the wand or hand;

-Two, study the Scriptures to show your selves worthy and approved of God, not men;

-Three, always speak the Truth in Love to the county clerk and never show belligerency--after all the other hat on the rack looks very ragged and dusty in deed.

Until next month, may our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, Bless, Comfort, and Keep you and yours in His Love and away from the Adversary, Amen.

Editor's Note: Those interested in further knowledge on the subject of the county clerk, there is now available from the Christian Jural Society Press a 33 page pamphlet written by John Joseph with a 90 minute audio tape covering the pamphlet recorded at Kaweah on November 7, 1997. The full set of audio tapes from this newest seminar are also available. See Page nine at "Newly Added Materials" or call: 818-347-7080 for further information.

Civil Rights, Lawyers, and Abortion

(continued from Issue the Twenty-second)

When Lincoln says in the Gettysburg Address: "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom," he means that the social, political, and economic elite are forming a new government. Thus, the line "that government of the people, by the people, for he people," is a mere gratuitous sop thrown to the people to encourage them to believe that they will actually have a hand in this new 'birth of freedom.'

The Amendments passed since Lincoln's War form the basis of a radical new interpretation of the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They are the filters that discolor the light of the original Constitution and it is through these Amendments from the 14th on, that the original Constitution is systematically reinterp- reted and twisted to suit a world view and presuppositions that are at war with Christianity and God's Law.

On this topic alone we have dedicated many pages in Part One of the Third Edition of "The Book of the Hundreds." But, for the time being, the Reader must accept the premise just outlined, for it explains precisely why the Pro-life movement has failed to abolish abortion.

Since the original Constitution made specific provisions for courts at-Law and common law actions in at least two places, and if the original Constitution is still the law of the land, then why do we no longer have courts at-Law and remedies in common law and no amendment has been passed to do away with them?

How is it that the Supreme Court, without a Constitutional Amendment, does away with clearly Constitutional provisions, both in the main body and in the Bill of Rights, such as courts at-Law, and common law actions?

How is it that the Supreme Court can say in the noted Erie Railroad v. Thompkns case that there is no Federal common law if the original Constitution that embodies common law and courts at-Law, says otherwise?

How is it that the Supreme Court can do away with the very cornerstone of American and English common law by saying in the same case that there is no stare decisis, i.e. no precedents in law anymore?

How is it the President can create law in Executive Orders without Congressional approval?

And this in spite of a court decision in which the court says that the Constitution makes no provision for the President's use of Executive Orders!

How is it that Congress can pass legislation, as it has in the last century, that violates every single Article of the Bill of Rights?

The truth of the matter is, the courts, the Congress, the President, and the States can do all these things that are clearly contrary to the original Constitution and Bill of Rights simply because they are acting in a capacity that is not bound by the original Constitution, and are working with a new deck of cards that is still called a Constitution that, in fact, bears no relationship to the original Constitution.

The key to the solution of the abortion holocaust is, the pro-life movement must realize that we are no longer dealing with the real McCoy, but are instead dealing with a marked deck, and a counterfeit Constitution which embodies a different law than the Framers of the Constitution had originally conceived of.

This new constitutional law is ultimately military and commercial and it represents a significant step down from the original law of the land in terms of its standing, jurisdiction, and real authority. And, one can scream to high heaven about a conspiracy, but there is none, because the Federal government has made full disclosure of everything it has done in the last one hundred and thirty-six years, and it has done so thousands of times in the public record.

The bottom line is, the American people are utterly ignorant of their own political and legal history because they have relied on politicians, the lawyers, the government, and government schools to tell us the truth about what the government has done and continues to do in every session of Congress!

Thus, the very first, hard, fact that the pro-life movement must come to grips with is, that they are dealing with a government of illusions and that the pro-life movement has been hood-winked by the illusions of government. They are victims of smoke and mirrors manipulated by politicians, and lawyers who are part and parcel of the very system they are fighting. The government that pro-lifers think they are dealing with is not the government that can solve the pro-life movements political and legal problems in dealing with abortionists!

The Lawyer Game

The truth of the matter is, modern lawyers, attorneys-at-law, and members of the Bar associations are the agents of the very government the pro-life movement is trying to fight. How do we know this?

Many sources could be cited to make clear the attorney-client relationship, but in the final analysis, the client is deemed, in the first place to be non compos mentis, i.e., not mentally competent. Otherwise, if the client were mentally competent he would not need the attorney.

But, in modern law, the attorney has other obligations which come before his client and these are as follows.

The attorney's first obligation is to obey the rules of the court;

The attorney's second obligation is to uphold the public morality (which is, of course, never defined);

The attorney's third obligation is to his client.

All lawyers and attorneys are bound to both the law and the rules of procedure of the courts in which they practice. But, if the lawyer cannot bring an action At-Lawagainst the abortionist and can only practice in courts where there is no common law, then he is prohibited from bringing any effective case, based upon real Law, against the abortionist. In simple terms, the lawyers of America are a major part of the problem of abortion.

Thus, the second hard fact that the pro-life advocate must reckon with is, lawyers,

attorneys, judges, and the courts they practice in cannot provide the pro-life movement with the remedy it seeks. In simple terms, you can't get there from here!

The only alternative to the serious pro-life advocate is to be his own counsel in an at-Law court, and prosecute the abortionists personally and in his commercial capacity.

De Jure and De Facto

Next, we must realize the true significance of what it means to deal with a de facto, not a de jure, government.

This means that while the current governments actually exist and function with all the power of a civil government, they do not do so as a matter of real Law. This is the difference between fictions and substance. Lawful governments deal in substance, in real acts and actions involving real flesh and blood people. Military and commercial governments, on the other hand, may exist in fact, but not in law, and since they are deemed to be arbitrary and capricious, they are called 'fictions,' of law and fictitious governments.

Once upon a time, courts in America dealt principally in substance, i.e., in common law adjudicated in at-Law courts, and such courts were courts of substance. Today's courts, being fictitious, cannot deal in substance and deal only in cases involving fictitious entities.

Now, we come back to the 14th Amendment. Note again, the phrase, "All persons born...," that we referred to earlier. Here our attention is drawn to the word 'persons.' What are these persons and what is their relationship to law?

The persons in the 14th Amendment are fictitious entities created by the fictitious government. That is, they are not real. The typical fictitious person is designated by a fictitious name written in all capital letters. Such a name is called a nom de guerre, i.e., a name of war. The name of war stands for the man or woman of flesh and blood, but it is not the name of the flesh and blood man or woman who writes their appellation in upper and lower case letters according to the Rules of English.

Likewise, the name of a real man or woman of flesh and blood is never substituted by an initial to stand for a name in any case or action filed at-Law, for such is called a misnomer. That is, the party is mis-named and the process or action filed is in error and must be rejected, although it can be amended and re-submitted. Evidence for the government of fiction is seen in every tax return filed in America, for the I.R.S. never allows anyone to use anything but an initial for the middle name on its tax returns.

It is certain that every court case filed by the pro-life movement in the last thirty years has designated every party to a case as a nom de guerre. The names of all plaintiffs and defendants are thus written in capital letters. Thus, the parties were fictions which came under the jurisdiction of the Civil Rights Acts and the 14th Amendment.

Further, the name of the court, the city and state in which the case is heard are also designated by a nom de guerre, i.e., are written in capital letters. Thus, the case was not a contest between real parties of substance, but a contest between fictions and that case was heard in a fictitious court with fictitious attorneys doing the argument on both sides.

Of course, most attorneys are either ignorant of these facts or simply do not care. And, with those that do know, they ignore the problem because they do not want to put their sources of income in jeopardy by making a disclosure of what is really going on.

Most attorneys use the nom de guerre for parties to the case and violate the rules of English simply because that's the way they were taught in law school and therefore, they will either consider the argument a moot point, or utterly ridiculous. Some, however, may see and may admit to the truth of the arguments above, but they will justify it by saying that, "That's the way its done and if you want your case prosecuted that's how it has to be done."

For the most part, the attorney is right. To practice in fictitious courts one must write a case as if it takes place between fictions, and that means using the nom de guerre, etc., and hearing the case in a fictitious court without any real law or authority. This means that the case against the abortionist cannot be brought into the proper court in which it must be bought into in order to get a decision that will rid us of abortionists!

Thus, the third hard fact that pro-life people must realize is, the existing courts, lawyers, and judges, and the existing law cannot bring the case that's necessary, under the right Law, to rid America of abortion. Something else must be done. Some other tack must be taken in some other court in order to reach that goal.

As God is not without a witness, so also has He left us a remedy to end abortion. But, this remedy will require a complete re-alignment of the pro-life effort and a complete re-thinking of pro-life strategy.

Back to Square One

The Scripture says: "Remember the old paths and walk therein." And, at bottom, the solution to the pro-life problem and the abolition of abortion is a matter of going back to the old ways, i.e., back to square one.

But, having said this, it remains for us to set forth the process to get back to square one. Earlier we stated that the process of abolishing abortion would not be an easy one and this is because the process of going back will involve a major change - intellectually and spiritually - for the pro-life movement. This process involves Law and a political solution, and a great deal of study and hard work.

The pro-life and all other Christian movements must know that simply because such and such is permitted and/or prohibited at the Federal or State level, this does not mean that such and such is real law, nor that the same thing can be permitted or prohibited at the county level.

The abortionists has won his right by keeping his argument within those venues, jurisdictions, and courts, where his argument is permitted. But, take him out of his courts and jurisdiction, and put him in a true court of Law with a different venue and jurisdiction, and the outcome can be an entirely different matter.

The political solution is a matter of re-forming the local government in the county or parish where the abortionists actually operates. It means virtually ignoring the political effort at the Federal and State levels, because that is not where the real power lies. In America, the real political power has always been at the local county level.

Sadly to say, most of the modern Christian political agenda has been focused on the Federal level and the battle has been, at that level, primarily defensive, trying to protect what is being taken away. This effort has created such groups as the Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition, National Pro-Life, Gun Owners of America, and countless others, and it has largely failed in terms of bringing about real and genuine long-term change. We are not suggesting that a change has not been affected by these groups, nor are we saying that it has not mobilized a very large, previously asleep, body of Christians.

What we are saying is, it has failed to bring about long-term change and has succeeded only in slowly down the Neo-marxist onslaught. When the pro-life movement has made changes in laws, they have fought constantly to protect what little change results. In effect, they take two steps forward and one back.

Such tactics fly in the face of the fact that the entire American system - since 1620 - has been based on local self-government and that the power flowed from the bottom up, not the top down.

What we are suggesting, therefore, is that we go back to the old ways and focus our time, money, and efforts at the local, county level. We are not suggesting that anyone should abolish the nation-wide organizations that Christians have created, because such leadership is essential and experience is vital to coordinating county efforts, on a national scale.

Thus, the political solution can be summed up by saying that we must re-focus our political efforts at the local level, in the counties, not at the Federal or State level, because in the counties and parishes is the one location where courts at-Law and common law process still remains for us to use if we re-activate the system given to us by Our Christian forefathers.

Next, in what form will this solution manifest itself? And, the answer is, in several ways, depending on what form of local, county or parish government exists in a particular State.

Basically, the effort is aimed at;

a. the county clerk,

b. re-establishing the Great Roll of the county,

c. re-establishing local courts at-Law,

d. re-forming the local civil government.

Now, the information and law that must be implemented by pro-lifers is not something that can be assimilated in a short article or pamphlet. Thus, we recommend that all of the above are initiated through local study groups, the purpose of which, is to provide the forum in which participating members can learn the right form of law in which to bring actions at the local county level to stop abortions.

These same groups would also study the correct way to write process, correctly use of the Rules of English in writing process and how to initiate an action in courts at-Law, and how to conduct the action once it goes to court. Let us be clear about this. Pro-life advocates must themselves know the law as it is stated in the Christian common law, and how to bring the proper action in a court at-Law.

"Can't we just hire a lawyer to do this?"

Answer: No!!! In the first place common law has not been taught in law schools for over sixty years and most lawyers today view common law as an old, antiquated, and an out-dated system. Thus, today's lawyers are not equipped intellectually to handle such cases.

Second, today's lawyers are members of a Bar Association. In courts at-Law they cannot practice.

Third, the process for bringing an action against an abortionist is relatively simple and can be learned by almost anyone. Thus, the lawyer is really not needed, which greatly reduces the costs of fighting the case.

Fourth, when the case is heard, the only parties that appear in court are the demandant and defendant, and while they may have non-Bar association counsel, such counsel cannot speak, for, if he does, the demandant or defendant is forbidden to prosecute or defend the case from that point on.

Truly, in courts at-Law the trial is mano e' mano, one on one, and toe to toe between demandant and defendant. This puts the abortionist at a great disadvantage because he cannot rely on someone else's expertise to exonerate him.

In courts at-Law, the law is not on trial, the defendant is. The law is already known and all the jury need do is determine if the evidence says that so and so abortionist did the deed.

But, since the modern abortionists do their dirty little deeds for commercial gain, i.e., for profit, and since this factor has not been tried before at-Law, the jury may also revise the law and increase the punishment for abortion if the jury believes that such is warranted.

The last reason for local study groups is, in most cases, the local situation is such that the existing county government cannot be reformed in any reasonable amount of time and not without major changes in the moral, spiritual, and political views of those who live within the county.

Thus, it will be necessary for study groups to learn how to properly form their own local, Christian government which will exist side-by-side with the existing government. This may shock most Readers, that such a thing can not only be done, but in fact, this was the situation in America prior to the termination of the courts at-Law and the end of common law process in the counties. In those days, there was a county government, and a township government, which maintained the at-Law venues and jurisdictions.

The difference in the two forms of government in the county is the law upon which each is based. The existing government deals in fictions and commercial law and sits under the thumb of Federal funding and military law. When the Township government is restored to the county, it will, once again, deal with the law of substance and courts at-Law, and will receive no Federal or State funding because it is supported by the Christian executors the proper Lawful government.

Of course, it must occur to the Reader that at least in re-establishing local courts at-Law and in re-forming the local self-government, the existing powers may have something to say about it all. Does this present a problem for the new governments and courts?

To answer this question, we must first realize that, whether or not the existing government takes any action is determined by the legal relationship between the Christian and existing systems of law and government. Which is superior and which is inferior? Do they have an equal standing?

The answer is, courts at-Law have superior jurisdiction and standing relative to commercial courts in those areas that deal with the abortion question.The new Christian government will, because of its fundamental law and the standing of those who hold offices in it, have superior jurisdiction and standing to all existing governments in those areas the pro-life movement has an interest in!

The point is, since existing governments have an inferior standing relative to God's Law and Christian common law, they cannot bring any form of legal action against courts at-Law, nor against the newly formed Christian government in the county, that will have any real standing.

This is not to say that existing governments will not try, but, since they have no Lawful process, the case can be dispensed with by a simple, non-statutory abatement process, which has been used so successfully by Christians the last three years.

It is entirely conceivable that a solid pro-life group, working in conjunction with other Christian groups such as Homeschoolers, The Christian Coalition, Gun Owners, etc., could, in less than one Congressional election cycle, completely turn around a county and restore Lawful civil authority, and, at the same time, abolish abortion forever in that county.

This is reinforced by several court decisions in which courts have ruled that the current military governments will stay in place, only and until, the people reject them.

The first step for the pro-life advocate is, get in touch with his County or State leader in the Pro-life movement and send him a copy of this newsletter.

Then follow up and, in conjunction with the King's Men, set up a meeting between the county or state leader and the King's Men.

The King's Men will then set up a week-end seminar in which the entire program can be laid out in detail, and in the process, the King's Men will also provide all the documentation to each seminar attendee, so that he can read and see for him or herself precisely what the problems are and how they are solved.

After the seminar, the King's Men can assist the pro-life movement and its leaders in every possible way, to implement the program outlined above.

With God's help and a prayerful heart and mind, we can go forward, and bring the abortionists to the bar of real Law, and eradicate the blood guilt from the Land.

Part Five

This will end, for the time being, the series on 'Exercising Your Right of Avoidance.' I am currently working on a 100 page treatise on this subject, which with God's willing guidance, will be available in April of 1998. At this time, The Christian Jural Society Press has a 32 page pamphlet with 90 minute audio tape available on 'Exercising Your Right of Avoidance.'

"Crafty are the wiles of the enemy, and many foolish ones are ignorant of his devices. Tutored by the experience of ages, seducers and evil men not only wax worse and worse, but they grow more and more cunning. If it were possible, they would deceive even the very elect. Happy shall they be, who, being elect, are kept by the mighty power of God unto salvation, so that they are not carried away with an error." Charles Spurgeon, 'The Sieve.'

The humanist State believes that it can control the evil of the world, and make mankind good. It believes that through tyranny, dictatorship, and manipulation it will conquer all hate, famine, and war. That State professes those things, but in fact, practices and 'creates' another. There is but One who can conquer and control these things--Jesus, the Christ.

"Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls." Mat. 11:29. [Emphasis added.]

Take my yoke upon you. The rest He promises is a release from the works of sin, not from the service of God. "You are under a yoke which makes you weary: shake that off and try mine, which will make you easy," is the message from The Messenger. Christ's commands show His favor towards us: we must take His yoke.

The yoke represents diligence, submission, humility, patience and--being yoked together with our fellow-servants-- keeping up the communion of saints.

Learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart. He was eminently humble, and this is what we are peculiarly to learn of Him. Like-mindedness--if we are to be like Christ, we should be lowly-minded. We must walk in the same spirit and in the same steps with Him, who humbled Himself to sufferings and death for us; not only to satisfy God's justice, and pay the price of our redemption, but to set us an example, and that we might follow His steps.

"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus." We must be of Christ's mind. We must bear a resemblance to His life, if we are to have the benefit of his death. If we have not the Spirit of Christ in truth, we are without Him.

"TRUTH. There are three conceptions as to what constitutes 'truth': Agreement of thought [*the mind of Christ] and reality [*God's creation, both spiritual and physical]; eventual verification [*by the creation]; and consistency of thought with itself [*not self-contradictory]. Memphis Telephone Co. v. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co., C.C.A.Tenn., 231 F. 835, 842." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 1685. [*Insertions added.]

God never contradicts Himself. He has always kept His covenant with us. It is He who is The Truth.

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me."

The two yokes cannot be taken on simultaneously, for that represents double mindedness. Exercising Your Right of Avoidance shakes off the burden of that heavier yoke so that the easy yoke can be taken on.

Avoiding Property Registration

The voluntary act of registering land in the County Recorder's Office changes the character of the land from that of inheritance under God to that of a commercial commodity. A 'purchased' deed is a commercial instrument representing 'ownership' in commerce. It then becomes taxable and seizable under the confiscation acts to support martial rule. It is strictly a plague of Babylon on the land brought about through the ignorance and neglect of the church. The fictitious layers that have been put over the land are, to a certain extent, the rebuilding of the Tower of Babel--layer, upon layer, upon layer.

There are numerous reasons for this, which will not be addressed here. But we will look into 'deforcement,' i.e., removing those fictitious layers and bringing the original character back to that of a Godly one.

It will require an ecclesiastical court to bring the land back. Until the church re-establishes its ecclesiastical character from that of a governmentally approved corporation under the 501(c)3, back to that of a Biblical one, the land will remain in commerce. The church is the only Lawful body that has standing to re-establish the land under its inheritance from God.

It will require the study and development of process concerning 'deforcement':

Deforcement

The fifth and last species of injuries by ouster or privation of the freehold, where the entry of the present tenant or possessor was originally lawful, but his detainer has now become unlawful, is that by deforcement. This, in its most extensive sense, is nomen generalissimum; a much larger and more comprehensive expression than any of the former: it then signifying the holding of any lands or tenements to which another person hath a right. [Co. Litt. 277.] So that this includes as well an abatement, an intrusion, a disseisin, or a discontinuance, as any other species of wrong whatsoever, whereby he that hath right to the freehold is kept out of possession. But as contradistinguished from the former, it is only such a detainer of the freehold, from him that hath the right of property, but never had any possession under that right, as falls within none of the injuries which we have before explained. As in case where a lord has a seignory, and lands escheat to him propter defectum sanguinis, but the seisin of the lands is withheld from him; here the injury is not abatement, for the right vests not in the lord as heir or devisee; nor is it intrusion, for it vests not in him who hath the remainder or reversion; nor is it disseisin, for the lord was never seised; nor does it at all bear the nature of any species of discontinuance; but, being neither of these four, it is therefore deforcement. [F. N. B. 143.] If a man marries a woman, and during the coverture is seised of lands, and alienes, and dies; is disseised, and dies; or dies in possession; and the alienee, disseisor, or heir, enters on the tenements and doth not assign the widow her dower; this is also a deforcement to the widow, by withholding lands to which she hath a right. [ibid. 8, 147.] In like manner, if a man lease lands to another for term of years, or for the life of a third person, and the term expires by surrender, efflux of time, or death of the cestui qui vie; and the lessee or any stranger, who was at the expiration of the term in possession, holds over, and refuses to deliver the possession to him in remainder or reversion, this is likewise a deforcement. [Finch, L. 163. F. N. B. 201, 205, 6, 7. See Book II, ch. 9, p. 151.] Deforcements may also arise upon the breach of a condition in law: as if a woman gives lands to a man by deed, to the intent that he marry her, and he will not when thereunto required, but continues to hold the lands: this is such a fraud on the man's part that the law will not allow it to devest the woman's right of possession; though, his entry being lawful, it does devest the actual possession, and thereby becomes a deforcement. Deforcements may also be grounded on the disability of the party deforced: as if an infant do make an alienation of his lands, and the alienee enters and keeps possession; now, as the alienation is voidable, this possession as against the infant (or, in case of his decease, as against his heir) is after avoidance wrongful, and, therefore, deforcement. [Finch, L. 264. F. N. B. 192.] The same happens, when one of non-sane memory alienes his lands or tenements, and the alienee enters and holds possession; this may also be a deforcement. [Finch, ibid. F. N. B. 202.] Another species of deforcement is, where two persons have the same title to land, and one of them enters and keeps possession against the other: as where the ancestor dies seised of an estate in fee-simple, which descends to two sisters as coparceners, and one of them enters before the other, and will not suffer her sister to enter and enjoy her moiety; this is also a deforcement. [Finch, L. 293, 294. F. N. B. 197.] Deforcement may also be grounded on the non-performance of a covenant real: as if a man, seised of lands, covenants to convey them to another, and neglects or refuses so to do, but continues possession against him; this possession, being wrongful, is a deforcement: [F. N. B. 146.] whence, in levying a fine of lands, the person against whom the fictitious action is brought upon a supposed breach of covenant, is called the deforciant. [This proceeding was abolished by statute 3 and 4 Wm. IV, c. 74.] And, lastly, by way of analogy, keeping a man by any means out of a freehold office is construed to be a deforcement; though, being an incorporeal heredita- [*171] ments, the deforciant has no corporeal possession. So that whatever injury (withholding the possession of a freehold) is not included under one of the four former heads, is comprised under this of deforcement.
"The several species and degrees of injury by ouster being thus ascertained and defined, the next consideration is the remedy; which is, universally, the restitution or delivery of possession to the right owner: and, in some cases, damages also for the unjust amotion. The methods whereby these remedies, or either of them, may be obtained, are various.
"1. The first is that extrajudicial and summary one, which we slightly touched in the first chapter of the present book, [see page 5.] of entry by the legal owner, when another person, who hath no right, hath previously taken possession of lands or tenements. In this case the party entitled may make a formal, but peaceable, entry thereon, declaring that thereby he takes possession; which notorious act of ownership is equivalent to a feudal investiture by the lord: [See book II, ch. 14, p. 209..] or he may enter on any part of it in the same county, declaring it to be in the name of the whole: [Litt. 417.] but if it lies in different counties he must make different entries; for the notoriety to the pares or freeholders of Westmoreland, is not any notoriety to the pares or freeholders of Sussex. Also if there be two disseisors, the party disseised must make his entry on both; or if one disseisor has conveyed the lands with livery to two distinct feoffees, entry must be made on both: [Co. Litt. 252.] for as their seisin is distinct, so also must be the act which devests that seisin. If the claimant be deterred from entering by menaces or bodily fear, he may make claim, as near to the estate as he can, with the like forms and solemnities: which claim is in force for only a year and day. [Litt. 422.] And if this claim, if it be repeated once in the space of every year and day (which is called continual claim), has the same effect with, and in all respects amounts to, a legal entry. [ibid. 419, 423.] Such an entry gives a man seisin, [Co. Litt. 15.] or puts into immediate possession him that hath right of entry on the estate, and thereby makes him complete owner, and capable of conveying it from himself by either descent or purchase. [But now by statute 3 and 4 Wm. IV, c. 27, s. 10, no person shall be deemed to have been in possession of any land within the meaning of that act, merely by reason of having made and entry thereon; and by section 11 no continual or other claim upon or near any land shall preserve any right of making an entry. The distinction between the law as laid down by Blackstone and the present law as to an entry is, that by the former a bare entry on land was attended with a certain effect in keeping a right alive, whereas by the latter it has no effect whatever unless there be a change of possession. When this takes place, the remedy by entry is still in operation; when not, an entry is of no avail, and this remedy no longer exists.]
"This remedy by entry takes place in three only of the five species of ouster, viz.: abatement, intrusion, and disseisin; [ibid. 237, 238.] for, as in these the original entry of the wrongdoer was unlawful, they may therefore be remedied by the mere entry of him who hath right. But, upon a discontinuance or deforcement, the owner of the estate cannot enter, but is driven to his action: for herein the original entry being lawful, and thereby an apparent right of possession being gained, the law will not suffer that right to be overthrown by the mere act or entry of the claimant. Yet a man may enter [see book II, p. 150.] on his tenant by sufferance: for such tenant hath no freehold, but only a bare possession; which may be defeated, like a tenancy at will, by the mere entry of the owner. But if the owner thinks it more expedient to suppose or admit [Co. Litt. 15.] such tenant to have gained a tortious freehold, he is then remediable by writ or entry, ad terminum qui praeterit. [The estate mentioned in the last note abolishes this proceeding.]
"On the other hand, in case of abatement, intrusion, or disseisin, where entries [*of him who hath right] are generally lawful, this right of entry may be tolled, that is, taken away by descent. Descents, which take away entries, [Litt. 385-413] [The right of entry is no longer taken away by descent. Statute 3 and 4 Wm. IV, c. 27, s. 39. This and the two following paragraphs are not applicable to the present state of the law.] are when any one, seised by [*175] any means whatsoever of the inheritance of a corporeal hereditament, dies; whereby the same descends to his heir: in this case, however feeble the right of the ancestor might be, the entry of any other person who claims title to the freehold is taken away; and he cannot recover possession against the heir by this summary method, but is driven to his action to gain a legal seisin of the estate. And this, first, because the heir comes to the estate by act of law, and not by his own act; the law therefore protects his title, and will not suffer his possession to be devested, till the claimant hath proved a better right. Secondly, because the heir may not suddenly know the true state of his title; and therefore the law, which is ever indulgent to heirs, takes away the entry of such claimant as neglected to enter on the ancestor who was well able to defend his title; and leaves the claimant only the remedy of an action against the heir. [Co. Litt. 237.] Thirdly, this was admirably adapted to the military spirit of the feudal tenures, and tended to make the feudatory bold in war; since his children could not, by any mere entry of another, be dispossessed of the lands whereof he died seised. And, lastly, it is agreeable to the dictates of reason and the general principles of law. Cooley's Blackstone (1872), vol. II, p. 167.

To those that are interested in re-establishing the land, it is suggested to study and research further information on 'deforcement' and 'ecclesiastical courts.' In the near future, God willing, we will further explore the land question in The News.

Miscellaneous Avoidance

The study of 'minimum contacts' is paramount in understanding what should be avoided concerning the ungodly. Always take into consideration the character of a particular activity that you may be involved in. Many times, something that may seem perfectly innocent can be quite devastating to your Good and Lawful Christian standing. 'Legal personality' is the most important thing to avoid. A standard rule to identify what may or may not constitute legal personality is whether or not the subject or activity was created by government through legislation. The question you must ask yourself is: "Is it 'manmade' or Biblical?"

Before the counsel of the ungodly!

by Michael Andrew

The blessings of standing with Christ. That is the message of the following article, resulting from encounters with the State of New Jersey 'road patrol' and their court. We salute Our Brother, Michael Andrew, for his faith, fortitude, and Christian witness 'before the counsel of the ungodly.'

* * *

To all my fellow brethren in Christ throughout the land. Greetings and salutations from Thee and may You all prosper from these writings in His Name.

The tribulation with the police was a frightening one, because it was a first time for Me, and secondly, they have the guns. I stood My guard with Christ and also with help from the King's Men. The time of suffering occurred while exercising My Christian liberty upon the common ways, here in the East. I was arrested and placed in vinculus for not complying with the current Military rule of the day. The following is an account of how it happened:

Once the red lights were placed on, I knew that I was arrested. The first policeman ['A'] was very confused. He had no idea what to do with Me. His main objective was to try and connect Me with a residence, of which he was unable to do. He was also confused with My proper Christian Appellation compared to a name, of which he was used to dealing with every day. Handing him My baptismal certificate totally threw him for a spin. He was unsuccessful at obtaining a residence until the other two vipers [Officer 'B' and Officer 'C'] showed up on the scene.

Now, with their arrival, things took a turn for the worse. I was asked to leave my vehicle and stand to the side (way off). I was also asked if they could search the vehicle and I 'complied'; and with that they turned into tornadoes going through everything. At first, they were getting nowhere, and the three of them came over to where I was and did the following:

Officer 'A' stated to Me that Officer 'B' over here swears that he knows Me and I better come clean, "or else." All the while, Officer 'B' had a smirk and grin of dung, nodding his head to confirm this. Next, Office 'C' said that he knew Me, and that I am involved in illegal activities, i.e., drugs, burglary, theft, etc., "and I have only one chance to come clean." I stood mute, because: "Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the Lord." II Chronicles 19:2b. Because I would not cooperate I was told that My vehicle will probably be impounded and I may go to jail. With no reply, they told Me to sit in their car while they continued to search the vehicle. With this, Officer 'B' decided to run the VIN number and they got what they wanted for the time being, because the vehicle wasn't Lawfully removed from their system.

Officer 'B' and 'C' then leave, and Office 'A' informed Me that the vehicle will be impounded and I am to go with him. He never informed Me of being arrested or read the private rights doctrine either. I complied and went along to the gray bar hotel. I was placed into holding for about an hour and a half, and he then came back to inform Me that I would be getting six bills of exchange (six traffic citations) in the mail, and he then left again. After an hour, he returned with the six bills and handed them to Me, and said "don't think I am a ball %&@*!~~*&%, but if you try to correct what is wrong, then see me before the trial and we can work something out with the prosecutor."--"Confidence in an unlawful man in time of trouble is like a broken tooth, and a foot out of joint." Proverbs 25:19. He gave Me only two days to appear. This was very strange because the norm is usually twelve to thirty days--I wouldn't know why until later.

Next, I was told that I was arrested, read the private right doctrine, and that I would be released pending...??? With this, I was requested to pose and give finger prints to them, and I complied (do not give them voluntarily, for they [photo and prints] are not Yours to give freely--they belong to Your Father). Although I was unaware of this at the time, this will not happen again.

Finally, I was able to walk out the front door without signing anything. This is strange, because later I found that to be released on OCR, you have to sign 'a promise to appear' paper. Usually, if the alleged fictitious fines are more than 1000 FRN's, a bail is to be posted or you sit in jail. The Lord takes care of His own. "But He knoweth the way that I take: when He hath tried me, I shall come forth as gold." Job 23:10, see also Psalm 17:3.

Once I had time to go through My possessions, I noticed that The Book of the Hundreds was missing from my briefcase. Where did it go? I remember it being on top of everything when the case was in the patrol car!! Could this have changed their ungodly minds, as far as only to provide Me with two days to appear? Maybe they only wanted to see how much Law I really knew? Only the Lord knows the answer!!

Now, placed into this tribulation of only having two days to appear and not enough time to have the defaults served for an abatement, I did two things. First, I prayed for the correct guidance and wisdom from My Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in this matter. Secondly, I did what many fellow brethren would do. I dialed 818-347-7080 and sought the wisdom of brother John Joseph and The King's Men. Before I go any further, I would like to thank John and The King's Men for their time, advice, and guidance given to Me on how to deal with the ungodly.

Because this was a first time for Me going before a military tribunal, I was literally trembling in the boots. I explained to John what had happened and he proceeded to educate Me on what he would do in a like situation. His twenty-some years of standing up for The Lord provided Me with a basic understanding on what to expect. He explained the metaphysical, physical, and spiritual battle that would be taking place in the courtroom, and so on. John also provided Me with the following, which are transcribed out of My notes with him:

[This is talking to the prosecutor. You are setting a record, and You will stand on God's record only.]

1. Christ did away with commerce in Matthew 4:8-11 and Luke 4:5-8, by the authority of His Father. If My Testator did away with commerce, and I operate within His Testament, then by what authority are you doing this action against me? You must have some reason, otherwise you wouldn't have brought Me here.

2. Christ was an executor of the Old Testament. You therefore are standing there in a ministerial capacity by visitation, as an executor of your testator's testament.

3. My Testator did not use your codes, rules and regulations for the things He did, and neither do I use your codes, rules and regulations for the things that I do. You can not find My appellation in your codes, rules and regulations. You can find persons, human beings, partnerships, corporations and all other godless entities.

4. I am made in the image and likeness of God according to My Testament here, and I am sealed by the Holy Spirit, which means that I have a separate character than that of your seal. I am only to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and since I don't have anything of Caesar's to render, then what am I to render? I am to render to God the things that are God's. I am standing here on His Testament and I am going to render to Him what is justly His. I am part of His inheritance, because I am a member of the church, and the church is God's inheritance.

Therefore, for you to move then is to disturb the peace and safety of the church, which necessarily means that you are disturbing the peace and safety of the state.

[Now the shoe is on the other foot].

5. The Law of the land and the Law of God are all one, and both favor and preserve the common good of the land (maxim). Now therefore, if you go against God's Law then you are not favoring the common good of the land. You are going against God and the Law of the land; how do you plead? No man is forgetful of his eternal welfare (maxim).

6. Further I stand mute!

Now with Myself trying to learn the above and literally burying My head into Scripture, I was a nervous wreck. But there was one thing that John knew that I didn't realize till after the encounter. The Lord will move Me on what to say at the time. "And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what ye shall answer, or what ye shall say. For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say." Luke 12:11-12. This was true indeed, as the encounter with the wicked went as follows:

Two brethren in Christ and Myself made Our way into the courtroom. This was a sight of mass confusion and chaos, and once the judge entered he took on a cloak of evil. He intimidated every poor soul in that room and the amount of souls numbered a good hundred and thirty. His first cases were like a ritual of offerings, hanging innocent unknowing fables by their own ignorance of God's Law. They were begging for mercy from Baal and seeking counsel with the wicked in plea bargaining. The Counsel of wickedness was very precise on his procedure, not changing at all. Like clockwork, the people would bring their offering before the ungodly and reap his punishment by more labor to pay his demands. You could actually feel the level of fear in the courtroom. "His mouth is full of cursing and deceit and fraud: under his tongue is mischief and vanity." Ps. 10:7.

Then finally, One was willing to do battle for the Lord. A name was called and I proceeded to advance from the back of the courtroom with My cloak of armor and My Law as My sword. I made My way through the bar, and the judge asked if I was MICHAEL A. URBAN. I proceeded with the following: "I am here to exercise Ministerial Powers given to Me by God through His Son, My Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." The judge replied, "What," and I repeated Myself. His little teenybopper scribe immediately turned off the court transcriber, and after that he asked Me again if I was "MICHAEL A. URBAN." I informed him and the world that "My proper Christian appellation is as follows in upper and lower case," and proceeded to spell out My appellation according to the rules of proper English grammar. All the while, the judge's eyes were rolling about his head. Next, he asked, "if this isn't you then who and what are you." I replied, "I am a good and Lawful Christian Man." He and the rest of the courtroom laughed at Lord and I, sealing their own fate before judgment. "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Galatians 6:7. His face was filled with disbelief, and then he asked, "well if this isn't you, then what are you doing here?" This was a trick question, and he thought he had Me. I replied, "I was told to be here." At this point he gave an expression, like throwing his hands up in the air in retreat, not knowing what to say. He went on further to say that "you better get a good and Lawful Christian attorney, and how do you plead?" With the courtroom filled with the mockery towards The Lord, I replied, "further I stand mute." He asked again, and once again I repeated Myself, "further I stand mute." At this time, the court recorder was turned back on by his transcriber. He asked again, and said if I don't answer, then he would enter My plea for Me; which he did and then he said "I was free to go." Then I proceeded to walk out of the building.

Now, to the previous one hundred fables before Me, he had asked if the address on the process was correct, and everyone had to leave by going through the clerk. I was able to leave through the way I came in, and never once was asked about an address. Afterwards, I also found out that this wicked judge is known for his punctuality of checking for the proper address, and intimidation.

Why did the judge lose the battle? The only answer to this is the power of The Lord. "But Thou, O Lord, art a shield for me; my glory, and the lifter up of mine head. I cried unto the Lord with my voice, and He heard me out of His holy hill. Selah. I laid down and slept; I awaked; for the Lord sustained me. I will not be afraid of ten thousands of people, that have set themselves against me round about. Arise, O Lord; save me, O my God: for Thou hast smitten all mine enemies upon the cheek bone; Thou hast broken the teeth of the ungodly." Psalms 3:3-7. and also Psalms 1 and 23.

The King's Men asked Me to write this for the edification of all. If the encounter happens to you, and it may because the Lord will test everybody, don't be a robot and commit what is here to memory. Read Scripture, and learn on how to get it from the brain to the mouth. Ask your Wonderful Counselor Jesus Christ, and talk to Him and ask for the ways to be shown. I did not use any words that Brother John provided, and he knew it. John provided Me with the ability on how to make the words flow. It wasn't the judge that had a change of heart; it was the Almighty God working in the courtroom. Amen.

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

A mother was seated at a table with her little son, a child about eight years old. She had been reading the Bible to him for some time.--He had been very attentive to what she had said, and seeming a great deal impressed by it.

Half Ready

"It says in the Scripture," said she, "Therefore, be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not, the Son of Man cometh!" now this may be said in respect to death, as well as to the coming of the Savior, for we cannot tell how suddenly we may be called away from the world. "Are you ready, my love, if it should please God to take you to Himself?"

The child remained silent for a little while, and then replied; "I think, mamma, that I am only about half ready.

How many thousands are there just in the same situation as this child? Are there not tens of thousands of professing Christians, who kneel at a throne of grace, who attend divine ordinances, who read the Word of God, and are edified by its doctrines and reproofs, and encouraged by its consolations who, were the same question put to them, must be constrained to give the same answer, "I am only half ready."

We may gain wisdom from the high and the low, the old and the young; we may gather it from the sayings of the wise man, and glean it from the lispings of the simple child; therefore, whether you are a youthful pilgrim in the road of life, or whether you have nearly reached the end of your journey, let much more of your thoughts be given to the subject of death and eternity, so that, should the question be put to you, "Are you prepared to die?" You may be able to give a satisfactory answer, and not be compelled to reply, "Alas I am only about half ready."

The Young Convert

The young convert may be compared to a child, whom his father is leading over a rugged and uneven path. After proceeding for sometime without much difficulty, he forgets that it has been owing to his father's assistance--begins to think that he may now venture to walk by himself, and consequently falls. Humbled and rejected, he then feels his own weakness, and clings to his father for support. Soon, however, elated with his progress, he again forgets the kind hand which sustains him, fancies he needs no more assistance, and again falls. This process is repeated a thousand times in the course of the Christian's experience, till he learns, at length, that his own strength is perfect weakness, and that he must depend solely on his heavenly Father.

A good reason for not going to War

Frederic, Elector of Saxony, intending to war against the Archbishop of Magdeburg, sent a spy to inquire into his preparations; and being informed that he gave himself up to prayer and fasting, committed his cause to God alone. "Let him fight that will," said he; "I am not mad enough to fight with the man, who makes God his refuge and defence."

Issue the Twenty-fourth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

The Christian Liberty Library...

Consent: Implied and Express...

In Vinculis - Revisited...

Myths of the Patriot Movement, Part Two...

Agitprop and The New Republic...

Abatement Update...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

The Christian Liberty Library

As many of the Patrons of The News know, we believe that the most economical way to get the works and information to you that are important for Christian Reconstruction is to provide it in electronic form, i.e., on computer. Early on, we believed that the best way to do this would be to set up a Web Page on the World Wide Web via the Internet. This would have eliminated the need for long distance telephone calls for those who had Internet access.

But, as time went on and we investigated the legal questions involved in using the Internet, we discovered certain things which gave us pause to reconsider the Internet approach. First, we were bothered by the fact that none of the Internet sources seemed to have any definitive information on the legal status of one who used the Net, other than the fact that the Net was originally started as The ARPANET, by the Advanced Research Projects Agency, a government funded arm of the Defense Department. Thus, the ARPANET, being government sponsored, had to have been, legally speaking, a military/commercial entity, which was, and is, one of the things we want to avoid.

Granted, ARPANET no longer exists, officially, but the backbone of the Internet is still a project of the United States Government. Further investigation made it clear that all possible Web Site classifications (.com, .net, .org, etc.) were not defined in a legal sense. Yes, .com stands for

commercial and .net stands for a sub-net, and .org is supposed to cover all other entities not covered by the net designations. But, since there was no 'legal' definition, and no case law extant, the whole picture looked very muddy. This, of course, would be a dangerous place to go.

Thus, it became clear that the Internet was not the place for us to post the works and information we have available.

Accordingly, we announced in a previous Issue of the The News that we would not put up an Internet site. We have thus taken an alternate means of providing the information to Patrons.

Ideally, what is needed, is a nation-wide, high speed (fiber-optic) network, for Christians and Christian works, that would function as a ministry not within a 501(c)3 corporation. With a fiber optic system, this would mean a backbone speed of greater that 100 megabits per second. This is not likely to come into existence in the very near future.

Thus, we go back to square one and create a stand-alone dial-up system. Most would classify the new system as a bulletin board service (BBS). But, it is not a bulletin board service. It is an electronic library available free to Patrons of The Christian Jural Society News, only.

This new computer library system is called, The Christian Liberty Library, and it will not confine itself solely to topics involving law, though law will form a major subject area of the library - in its initial form at startup. It is scheduled to go on-line and be ready for Patron access and downloading of files, at the end of January, 1998. The system is already under-going on-line testing, file loading, and system configuration.

The Library will be developed in Phases, each involving a significant advance on the previous Phase. The system, as configured in its initial form will be called, The Phase One Library.

The interface to the system that all Patrons will use, that is, the visual look and feel of the system, will not change, except in the number of functions offered and the amount of files available. It is simple and intuitive. The Patron will not need any special software, such as Netscape, or other HTML interfaces.

In Phase One, the Patron will be able to access the library through almost any of the commonly available dial-up software packages, such as: Telix, ProComm, Qmodem, etc., or the Microsoft Windows interface in the Windows program. It can also be accessed by the MacIntosh, Amiga, and Atari families of computers so long as the Terminal Emulation on the Patron's end is set up to use the VT100 type of terminals.

Thus, the Patron will have to tinker a bit to find the right Terminal look and feel that's satisfactory to the Patron's existing software. Initially, set your terminal emulation to vt100, vt102, etc., with ANSI color graphics.

Access speed will be 38,400 bps, and on one dial-up line. The dial-up telephone number will be 818-313-8814. The Patron will pay for his or her own telephone calls, whether long distance or local.

Functions permitted will be the usual e-mail, messaging, and file downloading. No 'file' uploading to the system is permitted for security reasons. Patrons who wish to post files on the system must forward them to Randy Lee on 3.5" floppy discs, in an IBM compatible format, for off-line checking and formatting before they can be posted in the Library. Thus, do not try to upload to the Library, directly, because the upload function does not exist.

The total of all files in the Library at this time is approximately 100 megabytes. The following list is a Sample of Files On-line in Phase One:

1. "Legcites," which is a 5.1 megabite file of legal citations compiled by John Joseph over the past 15 years.
2. More than 1,000 Court Cases.
3. "Democracy in America," by Alexis de Tocqueville (1835).
4. The Journal of Columbus, (1492).
5. "Give me Liberty or Give me Death," by Patrick Henry (1775).
6. A Collection of State Bills of Rights.
7. James Madison's Notes on the Federal Convention.
8. Military Government and Martial Law, by Birkheimer (1914).
9. The Presidency in the Courts.
10. The Opinion of the Attorney General on the Reconstruction Acts (12 Ops. 182).
11. The Book of the Hundreds, Part One, (The Prolegomena).
12. "The History of America," by Jackson.
13. Two Works by St. Augustine.
14. The Complete Works of Shakespeare.
15. Sermons from the Colonial War Era.
16. The Law of Names.

In addition, Patrons will be able send e-mail to the staff at the The Christian Jural Society Press.

Those who are not Patrons of The Christian Jural Society News will only be permitted access to the system for purposes of reading or download information on what is available in The Library and how to become a Patron of The News, etc.

Each Patron of The News must request access to The Library by posting First- Class Matter to Randy Lee at his location found in this Issue of The News. Patrons will then be assigned a login name, and initial password to get into the Library. On their first login, Patrons must change their password to one of their own choosing. The first login procedure is admittedly inconvenient, but this is purely a security measure to protect the Patron.

The Phase Two Library, beginning in the Fall of 1998, will provide Patrons with several new on-line tools to assist them in their studies, higher access speed (56k), more telephone lines, and other features.

The look and feel of the interface will not change, but there will be several additions to Menu choices. The total number of files available in the Library in this Phase will exceed 300 megabytes on-line for download by Patrons.

One unique Menu item to be added in this Phase, is the Composite Law Dictionary. This on-line dictionary combines the complete texts of: Webster's (1828) Dictionary, Holthouse Dictionary of Law (1847), Bouvier's Dictionary of Law (1856), Anderson's Dictionary of Law (1897), and Black's Dictionary of Law, in one computer file. When the Patron accesses the Composite Dictionary, a separate window will open on the Patron's computer in which the Patron can select any word and have the definition of that word from each of these dictionaries displayed on his own computer, all at the same time. Each source will be displayed in its historical order and one will see the development of the use of words in law over an extended period of time, as well as where the dictionaries agree, or disagree, on the use of a word.

A second feature to be added in this Phase is Cite Linking. In this feature, the Patron may read a file on-line that will have high-lighted cites. The Patron can then select the highlighted text and the system will take the Patron to the actual cite so that it may be read in context. If the word is defined in the Composite Law Dictionary, the system can display a word from that cite in the Dictionary and open a window to display it (at the bottom of the Patron's computer screen).

In The Phase Three Library, beginning in the Spring of 1999, we will feature Counselor On-Line. This function enables a Patron with a problem or question in Law, to enter certain information into the program, step by step, and then follow a recommended procedure to generate process or information that will effectively deal with the subject.

When the on-line procedure is completed, any process developed, can then be downloaded to the Patron's computer as a text file. The Patron can then import the text file into his word processor, adjust its format to fit his word processor and printer, and then print it out, ready for service.

At each stage of the on-line procedure, complete help screens are provided to explain what is happening, and why, and the do's and don't's of the particular process the Patron ends up with. Successive process on the same matter of Law may also be recommended in some cases.

Files available for downloading from the library are expected to exceed 700 megabytes by 1999 and 1 gigabyte by the year 2000.

Related Developments

Many factors enter into the question of how fast the Library can be upgraded through the Phases. The above projections are based on assumptions given the current level of interest in the Work of The King's Men and The Christian Jural Society News and Press. If interest accelerates significantly, the Phase schedule can be accelerated. If the level of interest declines from its present level, then the speed of development of the Library may also decline and be delayed.

Another factor that enters into the size of the Library, that is the total number of files available, is the rate at which files can be scanned or keyed into computer format.

Thus, for example, if a significant number of Patrons volunteered to key, scan, or proof Works in a computer format and then send such files to us, the number of files available in the Library could increase dramatically and dwarf the projections given in the Phases above.

In putting scanned files into the Library, the key factor is the time it takes to proof files after they have been scanned. Thus, for example, given our current scanner capability, we can scan good quality text sources into the computer at the rate of 200 to 400 pages a day. But, to proof, spell check, etc., those same files could take one to two weeks. Thus, it could take up to two weeks (at 8 hours a day) to put a single 300 page book on the system and make it available for downloading.

If, however, we had volunteers with computers who would proof files after they had been scanned, we could send them books that have been scanned on floppy discs. The volunteers could proof the books and return the proofed files on floppy disc to us, for posting on-line in the Library.

Lastly, we request that Patrons not copy The News for others, but instead encourage others to become a Patron themselves. That support will also impact on the speed at which the Phases can be implemented.

Conclusion

This first Phase of The Christian Liberty Library, though beginning small, is a beginning. Some may downplay its present significance, but the Lord says, "Do not despise the day of small beginnings."

With Our Lord's Blessing, The Christian Liberty Library can become a significant weapon in the furtherance of the Crown Rights of King Jesus. Please join with us on this march forward, and God Bless.

Editor's Note: To access the Library, set your computer dial-up software to 8N1, i.e., 8 data bits, No parity, and 1 Stop bit. Set your terminal emulation to vt100, vt102, etc. Post a letter to Randy Lee to request access, and we will return your login name, password and further instructions, immediately.

If you would like to volunteer to do proofing for the Library, or to key works into the computer that cannot be scanned, please call Phillip at 818-347-7080 and let us know. Please indicate in what way you wish to volunteer (scan or proof). The volunteer program will be implemented in February of 1998.

Consent: Implied and Express

Due to the positive response from many Patrons of 'The News' during the past five months concerning the series of articles on 'Exercising Your Right of Avoidance' and their requests for further information on that subject, the following is offered.

One of the major stumbling blocks in the pursuit of 'Exercising Your Right of Avoidance' is a legal phenomenon known in man's law as 'consent.' It manifests itself in two forms--Implied and Express. Consent transforms itself into major minimum contacts that are not easily overcome, due to the doctrine of estoppel. Therefore, it is important to know what constitutes consent in whatever form, and how to avoid giving consent to 'the beast,' in order to maintain your Christian status, and thereby, your Christian Liberty. It is my hope that all that read and study the following will take pause before they say "yes" to someone or something, or in doing a particular act, knowing then the implications of giving 'consent.'

The word 'consent' is derived from the Latin words 'con,' meaning 'with, together,' and 'sentire,' meaning 'to feel, think, judge, etc.'

Consensus facit legem. --Consent makes the law. Maxim, Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1859) Vol. II, p. 125.
Consent: "An agreement to something proposed. Consent supposes, 1. a physical power to act; 2. a moral power of acting; 3. a serious, determined, and free use of these powers. Fonb. Eq. B. 1, c.2, s.1.
"The one who gives consent must be capable of doing so." 1 Whar. Cr. L. 146.

Are you capable of giving consent to the ungodly? Did Christ give you the capacity to give such consent? The question you must ask yourself before giving consent to anyone is, "Has the will of my Father given me permission to do so?"

"My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not." Proverbs 1:10
"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. Romans 12:2

All the disciples and followers of the Our Lord must be nonconformists to this world. We must not conform to the men of the world, of that world which lies in wickedness, not walk according to the course of this world. Eph. 2:2; If sinners entice us, we must not consent to them, but in our places witness against them.

Consent: "A concurrence of wills. Voluntarily yielding the will to the proposition of another; acquiescence, permission or compliance therewith. State v. Boggs, 181 Iowa 358, 164 N. W. 759.

When consenting to anything, that consent must concur with the will of God.

Consent: Agreement; the act or result of coming into harmony or accord. Glantz v. Gabel, 66 Mont. 134, 212 P. 858, 860. 'Consent' is sometimes synonymous merely with 'waiver.' Dahlquist v. Denver & R. G. R. Co., 52 Utah 438, 174 P. 833, 844
"While consent is said to be a concurrence of wills, it does not necessarily refer to or indicate a bilateral agreement; it may be unilateral." Twin Ports Oil Co. v. Pure Oil Co., D.C.Minn., 26 F.Supp. 366, 371.
"The term 'consent' generally implies a yielding of that which one has a right to withhold." Reynolds v. Baker, 191 S.W. 2d 959, 961, 209 Ark. 596.

Man's law acknowledges your Christian right to withhold consent from them. Therefore, always remember that when it appears 'you must' comply to something, it probably means 'you may.'

Implied Consent: "That which is manifested by signs, actions, or facts, or by inaction or silence, from which arises an inference or presumption that the consent has been given." Avery v. State 12 Ga.App. 562, 77 S.E. 892.
"Implied consent allows for consent to be implied from custom, usage or conduct. For example, a doorbell on the front of a residence is an invitation to enter another's property for purposes of calling the occupant to come to the door and speak to you. However, consent cannot be implied when the property owner or occupant has outwardly evidenced an intent that consent is not given, such as a "do not trespass" or "keep out" sign. Implied consent is limited to accomplishing the purpose for which consent was given." Opinion by the law firm of Bauckham, Sparks, Rolfe & Thomsen for The Michigan Township Association (1997).

Invito beneficium non datur. --No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent. Maxim, Dig. 50, 17, 69. But if he does not dissent he will be considered as assenting. Bouv.

Benefits, privileges, and opportunities. Yes, the BPO's of the beast, i. e., the bribes from the government temple, as the candy to the kid, and the apple to the teacher. Accepting the bribe is consenting to the evils of that temple.

Implied Consent: "Implied consent exists where a person by his line of conduct has shown a disposition to permit another person to do a certain thing without raising objection thereto." Vick v. Zumwalt, 273 P.2d 1010, 1013, 130 Colo. 148.
Qui tacet consentire videtur. --He who is silent appears to consent. Jenk. Cent. 32.

The purpose of the Non-Statutory Abatement is to avoid that silence. With Law. But, if you've been accepting the bribes from the temple, you have already given consent. It is then too late for an abatement, due to acquiescence.

You of course have the right of repentance, therefore you must cease that previous activity, repent, and thereafter exercise Your Right of Avoidance.

Omnis consensus tollit errorem. --Every consent removes error. 2 Inst. 123.
Consensus tollit errorem. --Consent removes or obviates a mistake. Maxim of Law, Co. Litt. 126.
Volunti non fit injuria. --He who consents cannot receive an injury. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 2279, 2327; 4 T. R. 657; Shelf. on mar. & Div. 449.

How many times have you heard the phrase, "They just rolled over me." The reason they rolled over you is because you had already given them consent to do so. According to the maxims of law, once you give consent there is no error, mistake or injury on their part. But:

Consentientes et agentes pari poenâ plectentur. --Those consenting and those perpetrating are embraced in the same punishment. 5 Co. 80.

Avoid the punishment:

"Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world. But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto His eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you. To Him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." 1 Peter 5:8-11

Id quod nostrum est, sine facto nostro ad alium transferi non potest. --What belongs to us cannot be transferred to another without our consent. Maxim, Dig. 50, 17, 11. But this must be understood with this qualification, that the government may take property for public use, paying the owner its value. The title to property may also be acquired, with the consent of the owner, by a judgment of a competent tribunal. Bv.

Voluntarily appearing in court and submitting to that court's judgment, or your silence, is the consent given.

Express Consent: "That which is directly given, either viva voce or in writing." Black's L.D. 3rd Ed., p. 402.
It is direct, positive, unequivocal consent, requiring no inference or implication." Pac. Nat. Agri. Credit Corp. v. Hagerman, 55 P.2d 667.
Ejus est non nolle, qui potest velle. --He who may consent tacitly, may consent expressly. Maxim, Dig. 50, 17, 8.
Melius est omnia mala pati quam malo concentire. --It is better to suffer every wrong or ill, than to consent to it. 3 Co. Inst. 23.
Melius est recurrere quam malo currere. --It is better to recede than to proceed in evil. 4 Inst. 176.
"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." Matt 7:16-20
Implied Consent: "Consent is implied in every agreement. It is an act unclouded by fraud, duress, or sometimes even mistake." Heine v. Wright, 76 Cal. App. 338, 244 P. 955, 956.

Before you agree to anything with anybody, always ask yourself who you are becoming yoked with. For:

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement [*consent] hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. 2 Cor 6:14-18 [*Insertion added.]
Nemo videtur fraudare eos qui sciunt, et consentiunt. --One cannot complain of having been deceived when he knew the fact and gave his consent. Dig. 50, 17, 145.

In Vinculis - Revisited

by John Joseph

This month I wish to revisit an article of much concern and consternation among the readers of The News. For those of you who have the issue containing the original "In Vinculis" article, that information is not obsolete--it is reworked and honed to form the basis of a firmer stand for Christ. New material will be added in this article to substantiate better the material in that original article. Together, it is hoped you will be able to stand for Christ whenever and wherever you are taken in vinculis to the "magistrate." This article is more in depth than the original and requires more work on your part to understand. Much new information has been learned over the past year which is included herein.

I cannot put the words into your mouth, because it is not the words which give life. It is the Holy Spirit within you which gives life and power to the words. Therefore, it is incumbent for you to ask the Holy Spirit for guidance and the words to speak to those who would take you to strange and foreign places, before "their gods who are no gods." Edification is the best I can do--incantations are what heathens practice. The same restrictions in that first article also apply here. Do not ever try to use Scripture to justify your own lawlessness or "freewill." It simply cannot be done--

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting." Galatians 6:7-8.

Commerce is of the flesh.

The first place to start looking for any information is in Scripture. And the first place to begin is with our most Blessed and Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ. He testified on record for us:

"Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls." Matthew 11:29.

Matthew Henry says of this verse:

"We must come to Jesus [*the] Christ as our Ruler, and submit ourselves to Him (v. 29). Take My yoke upon you. This must go along with the former, for Christ is exalted to be both a Prince and a Saviour, a Priest upon his throne. The rest He promises is a release from the drudgery of sin, not from the service of God, but an obligation to the duty we owe to Him. Note, Christ has a yoke as well as a crown for our heads, and His yoke He expects we should take upon us and draw in. To call those who are weary of and heavy laden, to take a yoke upon them, looks like adding affliction to the afflicted; but the pertinency of it lies in the word My: 'You are under a yoke which makes you weary: shake that off and try Mine, which will make you easy.' Servants are said to be under the yoke (1 Tim vi 1), and subjects, 1 Kings xii 10. To take Christ's yoke upon us, is to put ourselves into the relation to servants and subjects to Him, and then of conduct ourselves accordingly, in a conscientious obedience to all He commands, and a cheerful submission to all his disposals: it is to obey the Gospel of Christ, to yield ourselves to the Lord: it is Christ's yoke; the yoke He has appointed; a yoke He has Himself drawn in before us, for He learned obedience, and which He does by His Spirit draw in with us, for He helpeth our infirmities, Rom viii 26. A yoke speaks of hardship, but if the beast must draw, the yoke helps him. Christs commands are all in our favour: we must take this yoke upon us to draw in it. We are yoked to work, and therefore must be diligent; we are yoked to submit, and therefore must be humble and patient; we are yoked together with our fellow-servants, and therefore must keep up the communion of saints: and the words of the wise are as goads, to those who are thus yoked.
"Now this is the hardest part of our lesson, and therefore it is qualified (v. 30). My yoke is easy and My burden is light; you need not be afraid.
"[1.] The yoke of Christ's commands is an easy yoke; it is chrestos, not only easy, but gracious, so the word signifies; it is sweet and pleasant; there is nothing in it to gall the yielding neck, nothing to hurt us, but, on the contrary, much to refresh us. It is a yoke that is lined with love. Such is the nature of all Christ's commands, so reasonable in themselves, so profitable to us, and all summed up in one word, and that a sweet word, love. So powerful are the assistances He gives us, so suitable the encouragements, and so strong the consolations, that are to be found in the way of duty, that we may truly say, it is a yoke of pleasantness. It is easy to the new nature, very easy to him that understandeth, Prov xiv 6. It may be a little hard at first, but it is easy afterwards; the love of God and the hope of heaven will make it easy.
"[2.] The burden of Christ's cross is a light burden, very light; afflictions from Christ, which befall us as men; afflictions for Christ, which befall us as Christians; the latter are especially meant. This burden in itself is not joyous, but grievous; yet as it is Christ's, it is light. Paul knew as much of it as any man, and he calls it a light affliction, 2 Cor iv 17. God's presence (Isa xli 2), Christ's sympathy (Isa lxiii 9, Dan iii 25), and especially the Spirit's aids and comforts (2 Cor I 5), make suffering for Christ light and easy. As afflictions abound, and are prolonged, consolations abound, and are prolonged too. Let this therefore reconcile us to the difficulties, and help us over the discouragements, we may meet with, both in doing work and suffering work; though we may lose for Christ, we shall not lose by Him.
"(3.) We must come to Jesus [*the] Christ as our Teacher, and set ourselves to learn of Him, v. 29. Christ has erected a great school, and has invited us to be His scholars [*disciples]. We must enter ourselves, associate with His scholars, and daily attend the instructions He gives by His Word and Spirit. We must converse much with what He said, and have it ready to use upon all occasions; we must conform to what He did, and follow his steps, 1 Pet ii 21. Some make the following words, for I am meek and lowly in heart, to be the particular lesson we are required to learn from the example of Christ. We must learn of Him to be meek and lowly, and must mortify our pride and passion, which render us so unlike to Him. We must so learn of Christ as to learn Christ (Eph iv 20), for He is both Teacher and Lesson, Guide and Way, and All in All.
"Two reasons are given why we must learn of Christ:
"[1.] I am meek and lowly in heart and therefore fit to teach you.
"First, He is meek, and can have compassion on the ignorant, whom others would be in a passion with. Many able teachers are hot and hasty, which is a great discouragement to those who are dull and slow; but Christ knows how to bear with such, and to open their understandings. His carriage towards His twelve disciples was a specimen of this; He was mild and gentle with them, and made the best of them; though they were heedless and forgetful, He was not extreme to mark their follies. Secondly, He is lowly in heart. He condescends to teach poor scholars, to teach novices; He chose disciples, not from the court, nor the schools, but from the seaside. He teaches the first principles, such things as are milk for babes; He stoops to the meanest capacities; He taught Ephraim to go, Hos xi 3. Who teaches like Him? It is an encouragement to us to put ourselves to school to such a Teacher. This humility and meekness, as it qualifies Him to be a Teacher, so it will be the best qualification of those who are to be taught by Him; for the meek will He guide in judgment, Ps xxv:9.
"[2.] You shall find rest to your souls. This promise is borrowed from Jer vi 16, for Christ delighted to express Himself in the language of the prophets, to show the harmony between the two Testaments. Note, First, Rest for the soul is the most desirable rest to have the soul to dwell at ease. Secondly, The only way, and a sure way to find rest for our souls is, to sit at Christ's feet and hear His Word. The way of duty is the way of rest. The understanding finds rest in the knowledge of God and Jesus [*the] Christ, and is there abundantly satisfied, finding that wisdom in the Gospel which has been sought for in vain throughout the whole creation, Job xxviii 12. The truths Christ teaches are such as we may venture our souls upon. The affections find rest in the love of God and Jesus [*the] Christ, and meet with that in them which gives them an abundant satisfaction; quietness and assurance forever. And those satisfactions will be perfected and perpetuated in heaven, where we shall see and enjoy God immediately, shall see Him as He is, and enjoy him as he is ours. This rest is to be had with Christ, for all those who learn of Him.
"Well, this is the sum and substance of the Gospel call and offer: we are here told, in a few words, what the Lord Jesus requires of us, and it agrees with what God said of Him once and again. This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye Him." Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Book of Matthew, pp. 161-162.

Thus it is easy to see that this Scripture verse is all important! In it Christ gives us the guide for what it is we must do to be a Good and Lawful Christian--"learn of Me." What Christ means is the following:

"The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord." Mt 10:24-25.
"Disciple. A pupil or scholar (Mt 10:24); especially the follower of a public teacher, like John the Baptist (ch 9:14). A person taught of God (Isa 8:16). It is used of all of whatever age who in faith received the divine Master's instructions (Mt 10:42; Lk 14:26, 27, 33; John 4:1; 6:66), and especially of the twelve apostles (Mt 5:1; 8:23; 10:1; 12:1, etc.)." Westminster Dictionary of the Bible (1944, Westminster Press), p. 140.

The key word is the word "as," meaning like or similar to. The disciple is to be like his master, and the servant like his lord, so that those of this world see not you but Christ within you. With you exercising your "free will" the world sees you--one of the several condemned without Law--not Christ, Who fulfilled the Law by executing it. Those of the world see Christ in you because His discipline is executed by you:

"And He said unto them, Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel, or under a bed? and not to be set on a candlestick?" Mark 4:21.
"No man, when he hath lighted a candle, covereth it with a vessel, or putteth it under a bed; but setteth it on a candlestick, that they which enter in may see the light." Luke 8:16.
"DISCIPLINE. Instruction, comprehending the communication of knowledge and training to observe and act in accordance with rules and orders. In re Swenson, 183 Minn. 602, 237 N.W. 589. "Correction, chastisement, punishment, penalty. Rules and regulations. Reutkemeier v. Nolte, 179 Iowa 342, 161 N.W. 290, 292, L.R.A.1917D 273." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 550.

The disciple follows, performs, or executes the instructions of his Master. This is very important when we look at Jesus, the Christ, and what the term "Christ" means:

"Jesus Christ. Our Lord was named Jesus in accordance with the directions of the angel to Joseph (Mt 1:21) and Mary (Lk 1:31). When given to ordinary children, the name expressed, if any thing, the parent's faith in God as the savior of his people. When given to Mary's child, it was designed to express the special office He would fulfill: 'Thou shalt call His name Jesus; for it is He that shall save His people from their sins; (Mt 1:21). Christ is from Gr. Christos (anointed), a translation of Aram. Meshiha, Heb. Mashiah (anointed, Messiah). Jesus, therefore was our Lord's personal name and Christ was his title (the Christ); though the latter was early used also as a proper name, as it is by us, either alone or with Jesus." The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible (1944, Westminster Press), p. 301. [Emphasis added.]

Dr. Watson puts the history of the word "Christ" this way:

"CHRIST. An appellation synonymous with Messiah. The word Christos signifies anointed, from Chrio, I anoint. Sometimes the word Christ is used singly, by way of autonomasis, to denote a person sent from God, as an anointed prophet, king, or priest. 'Christ,' says Lanctantius, 'is no proper name, but one denoting power; for the Jews used to give this appellation to their kings, calling them Christ, or anointed, by reason of their sacred unction.' But he adds, 'The Heathens, by mistake, call Jesus Christ, Chrestus.' Accordingly, Suetonius, speaking of Claudius, and of his expelling the Jews from Rome, says that 'he banished them because they were continually promoting tumults, under the influence of one Chrestus:' 'Judaeos, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes, Roma expulit,' taking Christ to be a proper name. The names of Messiah and Christ were originally derived from the ceremony of anointing, by which the kings and the high priests of God's people, and sometimes the prophets, 1 Kings xix, 16, were consecrated and admitted to the exercise of their functions; for all these functions were accounted holy among the Israelites. But the most eminent application of the word is to that illustrious personage, typified and predicted from the beginning, who is described by the prophets, under the character of God's Anointed, the Messiah, or the Christ. As to the use of the term in the New Testament, were we to judge by the common version, or even by most versions into modern tongues, we should receive it rather as a proper name, than an appellative, or name of office, and should think of it only as our Lord's surname. To this mistake our translators have contributed, by too seldom prefixing the article [*the] before Christ. The word Christ was first as much an appellative as the word Baptist, and the one was as regularly accompanied with the article as the other. Yet our translators, who would always say 'the Baptist,' have, it should seem, studiously avoided saying 'the Christ.' The article, in such expressions as occur in Acts xvii, 3; xviii, 5, 28, adds considerable light to them, and yet no more than what the words of the historian manifestly convey to every reader who understands his language. It should therefore be, 'Paul testified to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ,' or the Messiah, &c. Many other similar instances occur. Should it be asked, Is the word Christ never to be understood in the New Testament as a proper name, but always as having a direct reference to the office or dignity? It may be replied, that this word came at length, from the frequency of application to one individual, and only to one, to supply the place of a proper name. It would also very much accelerate this effect, that the name Jesus was common among the Jews at that time, and this rendered an addition necessary for distinguishing the person. To this purpose, Grotius remarks, that in process of time the name Jesus was very much dropped, and Christ, which had never been used before as the proper name of any person, and was, for that reason, a better distinction, was substituted for it; insomuch that, among the Heathens, our Lord came to be more known by the latter than by the former. This use seems to have begun soon after his ascension. During his life, it does not appear that the word was ever used in this manner; nay, the contrary is evident from several passages of the Gospels. The evangelists wrote some years after the period above mentioned; and therefore they adopted the practice common Christians at that time, which was to employ the word as a surname for the sake of distinction. See Matt. I, 1, 18; Mark I, 1." Watson's Bible Dictionary (1833), pp. 232-233.

It is the italicized portions of the above definition which must be committed to the heart. Christ is the anointed high sacred Office of Executor of the Testament of our Father. Good and Lawful Christians, being disciples of Christ, have the same duties, powers, rights, and immunities which appertain to that sacred Office, by right of Inheritance in and through Christ (representation):

"I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in Me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without Me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in Me, he is cast forth as a branch [*not living and depending on Christ], and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire [*process of the natural man's courts], and they are burned [*they lose and die]." John 15:5-6 [*Insertions added].
"The term [*stock] is used, metaphorically, to denote the original progenitor of a family, or the ancestor from whom the persons in question are all decended; such descendants being called 'branches.' Matter of Samson's Estate, 139 Misc. 490, 249 N.Y.S. 79, 83." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 1587.
"Haeres est aut jure proprietatis aut jure representationes --An heir is either by right of property, or right of representation." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 841.
"Haeres est eadem persona cum antecessore --An heir is the same person with his ancestor." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 841.
"Haeres est pars antecessoris --An heir is a part of the ancestor. So said because the ancestor, during his life, bears in his body (in judgment of law) all his heirs. Co. Litt. 22b; Schoonmaker v. Sheely, 3 Hill(N.Y.) 165, 167." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 841.
"Haeres est nomen collectivum --'Heir' is a collective name or noun." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 841.

The word haeres is more like executor of modern law:

"HAERES. In Roman Law. The heir, or universal successor in the event of death. The heir is he who actively or passively succeeds to the entire property of the estate-leaver. He is not only the successor to the rights and claims, but also to the estate-leaver's debts, and in relation to his estate is to be regarded as the identical person of the estate-leaver, inasmuch as he represents him in all his active and passive relations to his estate. Mackeld. Rom. Law.
"The institution of the haeres was the essential characteristic of a testament: if this was not done, the instrument was called a codicillus. Mack.C.L., 632, 650.
"It should be remarked that the office, powers, and duties of the haeres, in Roman law, were much more closely assimilated to those of a modern executor than to those of an heir at law. Hence, 'heir' is not at all an accurate translation of 'haeres,' unless it be understood in a special technical sense.
"In Common Law. An heir; he to whom lands, tenements, or hereditaments by the act of God and right of blood to descend, of some estate of inheritance." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 841.

Now, one of the most important doctrines in Law is this:

"No man [*disciple] can serve two masters [*or disciplines]: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Mt 6:24[*Insertions added]

We could also say no man can execute lawlessness and Law at the same time. What this means is: either you will serve our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, by executing his instructions or disciplines; or you will serve another master executing his discipline, whatever that discipline might be. The time for you to begin execution is before you are ever taken in vinculis. This is what establishes a record in your favor. Presumptions are very hard to overcome when there is evidence against you. The prince of the world uses presumptions to establish a record against you. All presumptions are rebuttable--the technique is in the nature of "confession and avoidance"; but is technically called "justification and excuse." It is the Law you confess which gives you the justification for doing what it was you are charged with doing. Using justification and excuse by using a foreign Law over which de facto governments lack jurisdiction is the key, because: One, you are not joined to their action, but commence an action in God's court; Two, you have superior Law which vindicates or excuses you from performance, thus raising a political question.

"REBUT. In pleading and evidence. To defeat or take away the effect of something.
"When a plaintiff in an action produces evidence which raises a presumption of the defendant's liability, and the defendant adduces evidence which shows that the presumption is ill-founded, he is said to 'rebut it.'" Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 1432.
"REBUT AN EQUITY. To defeat an apparent equitable right or claim, by the introduction of evidence showing that, in the particular circumstances, there is no ground for such equity to attach, or that it overridden by a superior or countervailing equity. 2 Whart. Ev. 973." Black's Law Dictionary (4th Ed., 1968), p. 1432.

You must have warrant in God's Law for doing what you did, however!!! The warrant in God's Word gives you the way out, provided you have the faith and the discernment to see it. Note well: There is no warrant in Scripture for profiteering or speculation--commerce. Therefore, you cannot confess the lawfulness of your trust, corporation, partnership, joint-stock company, joint venture, association, or society when it has no lineage of inhertiance from the Tree of Life--Jesus, the Christ.

"WARRANT. 1. A writ or precept from a competent authority [*Almighty God, through our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ] in pursuance of law [revealed or testamentary], directing the doing of an act [*or series of acts], and addressed to an officer [*executor] or person competent [*a Good and Lawful Christian] to do the act, and affording him protection from damage, if he does it. People v. Wood, 71 N.Y. 376.
"2. Particularly a writ or precept issued by a magistrate, justice, or other competent authority [*Almighty God, through our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ], addressed to a sheriff, contable, or other officer [*executor], requiring him to arrest the body of a person therein named, to answer, or to be examined, touching some offense which he is charged with having committed. See People v. Baxter, City Ct., 32 N.Y.S.2d 325, 327.
* * *
"A 'warrant' differs from a 'bond' in that a bond is a 'negotiable instrument', whereas a warrant is nonnegotiable and is subject at all times to the defenses it would be were in in the hands of the original payee, which is not the case with a negotiable bond. Adams v. McGill, Tex.Civ. App., 146 S.W. 2d 332, 334." Black's Law Dict. (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 1756. [All Good and Lawful Christians, because they are officers vested by Christ's Testament, have warrant to do the things they do, for their powers are given by the superior Testator, our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ.]
"JUSTIFICATION. A maintaining or showing a sufficient reason in court why the defendant did what he is called upon to answer, particularly in an action of libel.
"A defense of justification is a defense showing the libel to be true, or in an action of assault showing the violence to have been necessary. See Steph.Pl. 184. A sufficient lawful reason for acting or failing to act. Mercado v. State, 86 Tex.Cr.R. 559, 218 S.W. 491, 492; State v. Rish, 104 S.C. 250, 88 S.E. 531, 534; Townsend v. U.S., 68 App.D.C. 223, 95 F.2d 352, 358.
"Just cause or excuse. State v. Williams, 166 S.C. 63, 164 S.E. 415, 424. Just, lawful excuse for act. Louis Kamm, Inc. v. Flink, 113 N.J.L. 582, 175 A. 62, 67, 99 A.L.R. 1. Reasonable excuse. State v. Mueller, 208 Wis. 543, 243 N.W. 478, 479." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 1004. [Emphasis added.]
"JUSTIFIABLE. Defensible; [White v. White, 100 A. 235, 236.] excusable; [State v. Row, 81 Iowa 138, 149, 46 N.W. 872.] warrantable; [White v. White, 100 A. 235, 236.] that which can be shown to be sustained by law; warranted or sanctioned by law. [Black L.D.]
"Phrases. 'Justifiable cause' [U.S. v. Reed, 86 Fed. 308, 311; U.S. v. Coffin, 30 F.Cas.No. 14,824, 1 Sumn. 394; Martilla v. Quincy Mining Co., 221 Mich. 525, 529, 191 N.W. 193; White v. White, 100 A. 235, 236; Reynolds v. Reynolds, 68 W.Va. 15, 69 S.E. 381, 383, Ann.Cas.1912A 889.], 'justifiable conduct' [Dubenstein v. Dubenstein, 171 Ill. 133, 143, 49 N.E. 316.], 'justifiable ends' [U.S. v. Bustos, 13 Philippine 690, 697.], 'justifiable motives' [U.S. v. Bustos, supra.]" 35 C.J. 896.
"JUSTIFICATION. In law generally, a sufficient lawful reason why a party did or did not do the thing charged. [Mercardo v. State, 86 Tex.Cr. 559, 218 S.W. 491, 492.] In the law of torts, facts making the act chargeable legally justifiable. [Cyclopedic L.D. See Ferdon v. Dickens, 161 Ala. 181, 49 S. 888, 894.] In pleading, the allegation of matter of fact by defendant, establishing his legal right to do the act complained of by plaintiff. [Cyclopedic L.D. See Messler v. Fleming, 41 N.J.L. 108,] In practice, the proceeding by which sureties establish their ability to perform the undertaking of the bond or recognizance. [Cyclopedic L.D. See State v. Bateman, 102 N.C. 52, 57, 8 S.E. 882, 11 A.S.R. 708; Centrall v. Sterling Mining Co., 61 Or. 516, 122 P. 42, 43; Dickinson v. Smith, 139 Wis. 1, 120 N.W. 406, 407." 35 C.J. 896.
"JUSTIFY. To afford a justification of or adequate grounds for; to maintain or defend as conformable to law, right, justice, propriety, or duty; to prove or show to be just; to warrant. [Webster Int. D. See Coles County v. Goehring, 209 Ill. 142, 70 N.E. 610, 617. "Willing" and "justified" compared.--Ambergris Min. Co. v. Day, 12 Ida. 108, 85 P. 109, 113.] In practice, to make out, or establish according to law; [Burrill L.D. (a) "Justified by the statement of claim"--Quebec Bank v. Lessard (1917), 1 WestWkly 542, 543. "Justified" and "warranted" synonymous--State v. Rish, 104 S.C. 250, 88 S.E. 531, 534.] particularly to establish the sufficiency of bail. [Burrill L.D. See U.S. v. Hardison, 135 Fed. 419 (the word 'justify,' in the regulations issued by the commissioner of internal revenue requiring sureties on bonds to justify,means the proceeding by which the sureties establish their ability to perform the undertaking of the bond.]" 35 C.J. 896.

This illustrates theory of the technique. Christians, being disciples of Christ, are not found in the codes, rules, and regulations of the prince of this worldl. Taking our example from Christ, we read:

"Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world hath nothing in me." Jn 14:30.

The technique is to confess the Law or discipline of Christ, to justify your Lawful act(s) and to avoid the consequences of their purported law. The reasons are very apparent:

"Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." Mt 10:32-33.
"Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God: But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God." Lk 12:8.
"Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: And by him all that believe are justified from all [*earthy] things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." Acts 13:38-39.
"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth." Rom 8:28-32.

God's hand is controlling the situation at all times. It is solely by the Grace of God vested in the office of Christ you can do any thing at all. Notice my interpolation. You are not free from the Law of God at any time; but, you are always justified in not performing those things which have men for their author and oppose the righteous Authority of God:

"Naturalism is opposed to all known forms of supernaturalism, not because it rules out a priori what may or may not exist, but because no plausible evidence has been found to warrant belief in the entities and powers to which supernatural status has been attributed. The existence of God, immortality, disembodied spirits, cosmic purpose and design, as these have been customarily interpreted by the great institutional religions, are denited by naturalists for the same generic reasons that they deny the existence of faries, elves, and leprechauns. There are other conceptions of God, to be sure, and provided they are not self-contradictory in meaning, the naturalist is prepared in principle to consider their claims to validity. All he asks is that the conception of be sufficiently definite to make possible specific inferences of the determinate conditions--the how, when, and where of His operation. The trouble with most conceptions of God which differ from conventional ones is that either they are so vague that no man can tell what they mean or else they designate something in experience for which a perfectly suitable term already exists." Sidney Hook, essay titled "Naturalism and Democracy" in Naturalism and the Human Spirit (1945, Columbia University Press), p. 45.

There is no justification except in Christ. You are free from earthy things--those things which have earthy brutes for their author and not God for their Author. Those earthy things are codes, rules, and regulations. The natural man, however, has no access either to the Office or Testament of Christ, and therefore has no standing in Law:

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor 2:14.

Whenever and wherever you confess the Law or discipline of Christ, you act in a ministerial capacity, and you cannot be minister for two opposing sets of law, which we noted earlier. To act in a ministerial capacity requires knowledge of what a minister does and can do:

"MINISTERIAL. That which is done under the authority of a superior; opposed to judicial; that which involves obedience to instructions [*the Testament or Discipline of Christ], but demands no special discretion, judgment, or skill. State Tax Commission of Utah v. Katsis, 90 Utah 406, 62 P.2d 120, 123, 107 A.L.R. 1477; Blalock v. Johnston, 180 S.C. 40, 185 S.E. 51, 54, 105 A.L.R. 1115; First Nat. Bank v. Filer, 107 Fla. 526, 145 So. 204, 207." Black's Law Dict. (4th ed., 1968), p. 1148.

The minister then, is subject to the instructions of Him who sent him and has no discretion in the matter of whether he will obey them or not. Thus the acts of a minister are not "willful" but are carried out under orders of his superior, "in whom there is no sin":

"Thy kingdom come. Thy [*not your own] will be done in earth, as it is in heaven." Mt 6:10.
"Ministerial powers. A phrase used in English conveyancing to denote powers given for the good [*Lawful execution of the Testament of Truth], not of the donee himself exclusively [*not a private right or power, but common among Good and Lawful Christians], or of the donee himself necessarily at all, but for the good of several persons [*the Body of Christ--the church], including or not including the donee also. They are so called because the donee of them is as a minister or servant [*a Good and Lawful Christian] in his exercise of them. Brown." Black's Law Dictionary (1957 & 1968), "Power," p. 1333.
"But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted." Mt 23:8-12. [Emphasis added.]
"WILLFUL. Proceeding from a conscious motion of the will; voluntary [*which implies discretion.] Nashville C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Commonwealth, 160 Ky. 50, 169 S.W. 611, 513.
"Intractable; having a headstrong disposition to act by the rule of contradiction. Bersch v. Morris & Co., 106 Kan. 800, 189 P. 934, 935, 9 A.L.R. 1374. Obstinate; perverse. Lynch v. Commonwealth, 131 Va. 762, 109 S.E. 427, 428; Jones v. State, 7 Ala.App. 180, 62 So. 306, 307.
"Intending the result which actually comes to pass; designed; intentional; not accidental or involuntary. Garrett v. Commonwealth, 215 Ky. 484, 285 S.W. 203, 204; State v. Muzzy, 87 Vt. 267, 88 A. 895, 896; Rosevill Trust Co. v. American Surety Co. of New York, 91 N.J.Law 588, 102 A. 182; State v. Lehman, 131 Minn. 427, 155 N.W. 399, Ann.Cas.1917D, 615.
* * *
"A 'willful' act may be described as one done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly, or inadvertently. Lobdell Car Wheel Co. v. Subielski, 125 A. 462, 464, 2 W.W.Harr.(Del.) 462.
"A willful differs from a negligent act. The one is positive and the other negative. Sturm v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 38 N.Y.Super.Ct. 317; Thayer v. Denver & R. G. R. Co., 21 N.M. 330, 154 P. 691, 694. Simple negligence arises merely from heedlessness, and consists simply of facts of nonfeasance, and is therefore incompatible with willfulness, which comprises acts of aggressive wrong. Stauffer v. Schlegel, 74 Ind.App. 431, 129 N.E. 44, 46; and presuppposes a conscious purpose to injure; In re Cunningham, D.C.N.Y., 253 F. 663, 665; Ft. Wayne & Wabash Valley Traction Co. v. Justus, 180 Ind. 464, 115 N.E. 585, 587; Brittain v. Southern Ry. Co., 167 N.C. 642, 83 S.E. 702, 703.
"'Willfulness' implies an act intentionally and designedly; 'wantonness' implies action without regard to the rights of others, a conscious failure to observe care, a conscious invasion of the rights of others, a willful, unrestrained action; and 'recklessness' a disregard of consequences, an indifference whether a wrong or injury is done or not, and an indifference to natural and probable consequences. Jensen v. Denver & R. G. Co., 44 Utah 100, 138 P. 1185, 1188. Se, also, Evans v. Illinois Central R. Co., 289 Mo. 493, 233 S.W. 397, 399; Cover v. Hershey Transit Co., 290 Pa. 551, 139 A. 266; Feore v. Trammel, 212 Ala. 325, 102 So. 529; Crosman v. Southern Pac. Co., 44 Nev. 286, 194 P. 839.
"Conscious; knowing; done with stubborn purpose, but not with malice. Bundy v. State, 206 N.W. 21, 22, 114 Neb. 121; American Surety Co. of New York v. Sullivan, C.C.A.N.Y., 7 F.2d 605, [*1774] 606; Helme v. Great Western Milling Co., 43 Cal.App. 416, 185 P. 510, 512.
"Premeditated; malicious; done with evil intent, or with a bad motive or purpose, or with indifference to the natural consequences; unlawful; without legal justification. State v. Vanderveer, 115 Wash. 184, 196 P. 650; State v. Johnson, 194 N.C. 378, 139 S.E. 697, 698; Boyce v. Greeley Square Hotel Co., 228 N.Y. 106, 126 N.E. 647, 649." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957), pp. 1773-1774.
"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Heb 4:15.

The same is true of Good and Lawful Christians, because they are "executors" of the Testament of Christ, which is a ministerial office, by the relationship they have in covenant with Him, having his yoke:

"EXECUTOR. A person appointed by a testator to carry out the directions [*discipline] and requests in his will, and to dispose of the property according to his testamentary provisions after his decease. In re Lamb's Estate, 122 Mich. 239, 80 N.W. 1081; In re Sipchen's Estate, 180 Wisc. 504, 193 N.W. 385, 387;
"A person to whom a testator by his will commits the execution, or putting in force, of that instrument and its codicils. Fonbl. 307.

That instrument is The Holy Writ--The Holy Scriptures.

Editor's Note: The Christian Jural Society Press now has available a 90 minute audio tape with 32 page pamphlet on 'In Vinculis' written and presented by John Joseph.

Myths of the Patriot Movement

(contined from Issue the Ninth)

The so-called Patriot Movement and the religion it practices can be said to have a predictable monthly tithing call to its worshippers and worshippers-to-be. It is, "Come join The Silver Bullet of the Month Club." The echo of its bark seems to bounce off the walls of the carnival temple in which it preaches--those paid commercial ads within various 'patriot' magazines, books, literature, and talk radio.

Taken to exaggerated levels, the huckster's pitch is resonant:

"Come and get it! Yes, it's the all new, only-one-of-its-kind, step-by-step, you-can-beat-'em-at-their-own-game, 'Pro Se Litigation' package,"
"Get it here. Become a 'sovereign sentient human being' with our super special one-size-fits-all eight hundred dollar 'state citizenship' package,"
"Don't miss this one. Let us make you 'safe and secure' with our 'super-duper, guaranteed not to fail,' twelve hundred dollar 'Pure-Common Law-Offshore Trust' package,"
"Come one, come all! Get this just-released, new and improved, Hot! Hot! Hot!, world renowned, teach-'em-a-lesson, get rich weapon of revenge, 'Title 42 Lawsuit' package,'
"Extra, extra, read all about it. Get your land back with our newly released, 'Allodial Title' package,"
"New & Improved!! Get yourself out from underneath the thumb of the I.R.S with our special, time-tested (twenty year prison term) 'Un-Tax' package."

And of course, we can't forget the Recision packages, Right to Travel packages, Comptroller Warrant packages, Commercial Lien packages, Common Law Court packages, Social Security packages, Flag of Peace packages, Civil Death packages, Statute Staple packages, Bill of Particulars packages, Bill of Annulment packages, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

"Come unto me, for I will get you out of your desperate situation, protect you and make you safe and secure (if you can afford it)," is their spiel. They become the gods and gurus of 'law.' The victims cry, "more, more, give us more; just one more Silver Bullet," and these 'law gods' reply, "more, more? yes, we have more, if you have more, more, more money!!!"

And of course, "the more it costs, the 'more powerful' it must be."

Surely, the snake oil salesmen of the 1800's would be proud, and today's T.V. ad exec's would excitedly quip, "it's the triumph of the human spirit at its finest."

The truth of the matter is, there are no Silver Bullets, except in the fictional world of The Lone Ranger and Tonto.

Ironically, the follies of the 'sovereign' human mind become quite clear when you find out what a 'patriot' really is:

"PATRIOT. Mistakenly (with possessive) as if = upholder, devotee: mid-C 17. Weever, 1631 'A Patriot of Truth.' O.E.D." A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English (1961), p. 610.

Self-righteousness = self-destruction. The self-righteousness of man's legalism results in his own self-destruction.

The fact that humanist America has truly come to the chasm of self-destruction becomes more and more evident each day. The 'patriot gods' and their 'disciples' are part of that evidence. These 'sheep' exist because they prefer to look to the creations of man for their safekeeping, rather than their Divine Creator. They either forgot or don't know (or don't want to know) that He said "I will never leave you nor forsake you," and that, "Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain."

The hirelings that concoct the 'silver bullets' are simply the end result of fictions of fallen minds wandering in the dark without Christ and Scripture.

Those who know The Truth, know that only God Almighty is Sovereign, that His Rights vested in Us as Executors of His Testament are Rights superior to anything that the 'gods of government' can offer, or the 'gods of the patriot movement' can claim to offer. They know that real Law comes from The One True God alone and is freely accessible in Scripture.

The Myths and Heresies of The Patriot Movement are the same Myths and Heresies of the ancients--Egypt, Greece, Rome and their Mother of Whores, Babylon-- with a 'new and improved' face of confusion through their love for codes, rules and regulations of man-made 'law.'

How many have thrown their hands up in the air and said, "I give up. I've tried all of the packages and I'm more confused now than when I started." Why is this?

When you put your faith for earthly salvation in the Babylonian creations of the secular commercial world, you reap what they sow -- a harvest of confusion, desolation, and damnation.

"Truly in vain is salvation hoped for from the hills, and from the multitude of mountains: truly in the LORD our God is the salvation of Israel. For shame hath devoured the labour of our fathers from our youth; their flocks and their herds, their sons and their daughters. We lie down in our shame, and our confusion covereth us: for we have sinned against the LORD our God, we and our fathers, from our youth even unto this day, and have not obeyed the voice of the LORD our God. Jer 3:23-25

Just as the corrupt traditions of the elders become the introduction of universal confusion, which makes man like the fishes of the sea, so too does the idea that every man can, outside of The Law of God, avenge himself through the hands of 'private persons.' These private persons; these hirelings; these sons of Adam, again say, "Come unto us, for we will be your gods, and you will be our sheep."

The Way, The Truth, and The Life

"Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. All that ever came before Me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door: by Me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth His life for the sheep. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and know My sheep, and am known of Mine. John 10:7-14 Amen.

'Agitprop' and the New Republic

by John Quade

In the first quarter of the the 20th Century, a term emerged in American theater, which was used to describe the content of a specific type of play. This term was 'agitprop,' and it was derived from the combination of two words, agitation and propaganda. Thus 'agitprop' theater was theater which sought deliberately, to employ agitation and propaganda in order to advance the ideas of those with an unpopular agenda, which, in the case of American theater in the 1920's and 30's, was usually the agenda of the far left, i.e., the neo-Marxist, Communist, or socialist.

The methods of agitprop were very simple. The writer took any 'perception' of social evil in the world about him, removed it from its factual and historical context (proof texting), and created a book, pamphlet, or play around it. The key factors to remember are the ideas of 'perception' and 'proof texting.'

One's 'perception' of the facts cannot be ignored in understanding the idea of agitprop. One's perception is based entirely upon and is controlled by one's presuppositions. The perception of an event and its meaning is controlled entirely by whether one is a Christian or humanist. Thus, a Christian and a humanist may witness the same event and come to entirely different understandings of what the event means. To the one the event is normal and to the other it may be an outrage.

Second, if the event is taken out of its factual and historical context, the meaning of the event is lost. Again, whether or not one is a Christian or humanist makes all the difference in the world as to how the event is interpreted. Thus, one may utter the oft quoted phrase that "money is the root of all evil," which is taken - in part - from the Bible. But this version of the quote is proof-texted, that is, it is lifted out of context which distorts its meaning. The proof-text version of the quote seems to condemn money as the root of all evil. But, if we put the verse back into its proper context, we find that what the Bible actually says is, "The love of money is the root of all evil" [1Timothy 6:10], which says something entirely different about money than the proof-text version of the verse.

Thus, the 'perception' of any event must be carefully considered and one must avoid all tendency to 'proof text' the event, if one wants to know the truth of the matter.

But, the agitprop writer could care less about truth. His only goal was to point out a perceived social injustice. Further, the historical context and real facts of the matter were of no concern to him and may, in fact, get in the way of his agitation and propaganda. Besides, the truth would only confuse the ignorant masses.

Agitprop always has a goal in mind, though it seldom offers any real or viable statement of that goal, in the long-term sense. Its short-term goal is merely to set an agenda, which in the case of its use in American theater, was socialist.

The importance of setting the agenda must not be over-looked, because once the agenda has been set, all further discussion of the agenda takes place on the presuppositions of he who sets it. It is very difficult if not impossible to to alter the terms and conditions of the agenda once it has been popularized, because the public perception' of the agenda is thought to be a true statement of the things.

Thus, if one's agenda is to bring about the legalization of abortion, and one casts the agenda in the form of a woman's right, all real consideration of protecting the baby in the womb is gone. In part this is because the agenda is cast in a form that appeals to the sin nature of man, or in this case the sin nature of woman.

Note how the abortion agenda has been cast in precisely this form. The agenda entirely ignored whether or not a woman really had such a right. It merely asserted in a loud voice that all women had the right to their own bodies and this appealed to the sin nature of women. The entire debate over abortion removed not only the consideration of the baby's right, but the husband's right as well, along with many other issues such as whether or not the state has a compelling interest in protecting the baby in the womb.

Bear in mind, that the so-called woman's right is an issue that could only be raised in the current environment of lawlessness in the arbitrary and capricious nature of a military government engaged in commercial civil rights. In the common law, a woman has no such right and thus, in a lawful environment, the question could never have been raised in the first place.

The more important side of agitprop agenda, is the hidden side of the agenda, for there is always a hidden purpose to agitprop, and it does not even matter whether or not the creator of the agenda knows it or not. Indeed, when the agitprop agenda is proof-texted from history and the real, properly interpreted facts of the case, the agitprop creator lives in a world of unreality in which he cannot see the real consequences of his own ideas. He is, as the Scripture says, 'blinded in his heart.'

Thus, in the case of abortion, the 'public agenda' was to advance a 'woman's right' to abort the baby in the womb. But, as we all know, nothing happens in politics by accident. Modern civil governments only do what serves the compelling interests of government itself.

Earlier we raised the issue of whether or not there was a compelling state interest in protecting the baby in the womb. Obviously, since abortion is 'legalized' the answer to this question is, the State has no compelling interest in protecting the baby in the womb.

But, does this mean that there is no compelling state interest in the abortion issue? Did the Federal power merely legalize abortion because the people demanded it? Was there some other compelling state interest that has not been discussed that is related to the abortion question?

The answer to these questions, in the order in which they were asked is: no; yes; and yes.

By 'no' to the first question we merely wish to point out that a military and commercial State never acts to satisfy the demands of the people unless it serves to protect the further existence of the State.

The compelling state interest was there, but the interest was to protect the interest of the state, not the people.

The 'powers' did not legalize abortion because the people demanded it, for there was never anything more than a loud and vocal agitprop minority of the people who supported abortion, and to this day that is still true. Abortion was legalized because it was necessary for the long-term stability of the United States government!!!

Why? Because the Federal government and its think-tanks recognized that the cost of its social programs was exceeding the ability of the people to pay. A major factor in this equation was the cost in Federal programs to support babies and young people until they reached an age where they could begin to re-pay the Federal power for all the benefits they had been receiving!!!

The costs of Federal milk and school lunch programs, the public schools, social welfare in Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Federal aid to college students, and a host of other programs, was rising at a cost that could not be satisfied, even with all the debt spending and taxing the people into poverty. Therefore, something had to be done.

Thus, borrowing from supply and demand economics, the Federal boys reasoned that, if we reduce the demand for Federal programs, the budget costs should level off and perhaps even be reduced to something more manageable. The answer was: allow fewer babies into the system.

But, this did not mean raising the standard of who could apply for these benefits. Agitprop had done its job too well. Now, everyone believed he has a right to these Federal benefits. The only other way to reduce demand for benefits was to reduce the number of demandants, and that meant legalizing abortion!!! This was the real agenda of the agitprop creators, and in this case, many of those agitprop leaders knew the direct connection between the population control and abortion agendas.

But, this agenda would never have flown with the American people if abortion had been justified in this way, for everyone, even the churches, would have equated such an agenda with Hitler and the Holocaust and such an agenda would have been rejected outright.

The agitprop creator always protests that which he either cannot, or will not, fix for himself. If the agitprop is directed towards social change, it is clear that the agenda is to pressure the 'powers' into 'solving' the perceived social injustice which the agitprop creator is protesting.

This aspect of agitprop in which the individual agitprop creator will not dirty his hands, (i.e., taking personal responsibility for feeding the poor, caring for the elderly, or whatever the agenda is) means that the agitprop creator is an elitist. It is always 'someone else's job' to fix the ills of society that agitprop complains of. And, since agitprop invariably has a social agenda, this means action must be taken by the State power, not the individual man or woman.

The power of agitprop is seen when we look at the number of so-called 'not-for-profit' groups and foundations in the country who are on the Federal dole. Each of these has its own agenda and none campaigns to eliminate the Federal dole for that would put them out of business. In a study done nearly fifteen years ago, it was determined that there were 108,000 such foundations on the Federal pay-roll (See the Lichter and Rothman Reports of 1983).

There are many long-term implications or consequences to agitprop, not the least of which is, that the agitprop agenda is always to expand the size and power of the civil government. It does not matter whether agitprop is used to advance abortion, social justice, or environmental causes. The end result is, government gets larger at the expense of the people.

Of course, most of the initial spending to launch the thousands of Federal programs comes from increasing the debt load of the Federal government. But, this has a limit, contrary to what most people believe (including politicians), and eventually, the borrower can no longer dip into the nest of the goose that lays the golden egg. The result is always, with every rise in spending, that the lender demands more and more collateral and greater protection for his money meaning tighter controls on the people, more licenses at higher cost, higher taxes, etc.

It is always the people who pay and suffer under regime's motivated by agitprop, because there is only so much power available in every society. A simple analogy illustrates the point.

If all the power available in a society is derived by a mathematical formula to equal a certain number, and if that power is distributed between the people and the state, then any increase in one side of the equation must mean a decrease in the other side of the equation.

It doesn't matter what the power number is, whether 10, 1,000 or 2,456. Over time the power number may increase or decrease but there is always a certain number held by the people, and the rest is held by the state (to oversimplify the analogy).

Thus, if the total power number is found to equal 50, the state may have 25 of the total and the people have 25. If the state expands it power with new programs to satisfy the people's response to the agitprop agenda. If the expansion requires a power of 5 for example, then the state ends up with a power of 30 and the people are reduced by an equal amount, to 20.

As we have said, this analogy is over-simplified. We have left out of the equation, for example, the power of the corporations, small business, and the Christian church. At one time in the land, the church had more power than the State, but as the people looked more and more to the 'it,' this meant a decline in both the power of the church and the people. It is clear that today's Christian church is not a serious factor in the power equation. The reason is, the churches themselves have long since abandoned the whole counsel of God and His Law, and thus, there is no longer an organized 'voice of truth' to counter the agitprop of modern Humanism.

Now, there is always someone who will say; "But, the power of God in His church is infinite and cannot be numbered!" True, but if the church has compromised its standing and watered down its doctrine, it has rendered itself useless for God's divine purposes and He will seek other ways to manifest His power, but not before He has judged such a worthless church.

The decline of the Christian church's power began when the body of believers and their pastors did not challenge the agenda of the abolitionist's agitprop in the 1840's and thereafter. And, by the word 'church,' we mean the Christian church in both the North, South, East, and West.

The church in the South should have been preaching and teaching that institutional slavery was wrong when slaves were made inheritable from generation to generation. This was a clear violation of God's Law and is punishable by death, especially for slaves who were Christian.

The Northern should have challenged the abolitionists directly, as fomenters of lawlessness, but they did not because the churches in the North and some in the South, had already started incorporating and thus had opted for man's law and not God's Law as the law of their existence.

Since the church would not challenge the agitprop agenda in the North and it would not challenge the sin in Southern slave owners, the entire agitation and propaganda agenda before, during, and since Lincoln's War, has been set by the Humanists, to advance the Humanistic agenda.

The end result was the most bloody and costly war in the nation's history which was fought for a cause set entirely by Humanists. The outcome of Lincoln's War and its long-term consequences is thus a foregone conclusion - tyranny/despotism.

The answer to the tyranny and despotism of agitprop, Lincoln's War, the current military and commercial powers in the Federal, State, County, City governments, is the same as it has always been-- Christ and His Law found in Scripture.

Abatement Update

We thank our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, for being and showing us the Way for us to walk in; for being, expressing and revealing the Truth in Love to us; for being the Life and showing what it means to live for our Father; and confirming all of the foregoing by paying the ultimate price for all of us who believe on Him Who was sent of and by our Father. We also thank the several King's Men across the land, from the church at Hawaii to the church at Maine and everywhere in between for their steadfastness in the Lord by, "holding fast that which is good" and "having done all" stood fully armored on the Holy Ground of His Righteousness. We also thank their loving and supporting wives and children, for without your support and love for your husbands and fathers the house is divided and cannot stand. Thank you all for maintaining your houses under the Blessed Lordship of Jesus, the Christ. Truly you are a sanctified and peculiar people worthy of the High and Noble calling of "Good and Lawful Christian." Without you and your fellowship the road is very hard and long. We thank God and our Lord, King Jesus, for the privilege of your fellowship and love, and ask that you keep us in your prayers as we do you. We know the battle is the Lord's and that all time, space, and reality is in His mighty hand to command as He sees fit. Who can stay it? or who commands Him Who holds the worlds, and their destinies, in His hands?

The following is a supplement applicable to The Abatement Handbook section of The Book of the Hundreds, third edition only. To further facilitate the implementation of the political standing of Christ and His Law by the Good and Lawful Christian, it is recommended that the following changes be made to the abatements. These changes are not for any editions of the "Book of the Hundreds" earlier than the Third Edition. If you have an earlier edition, it is highly recommended that you obtain the Third Edition. Before you implement these changes or additions in any future abatements, take the time to understand the comments and substantiate them by your own independent research and counsel. We cannot stress the importance of this enough. The paper is not you, and so it is incumbent for you to research the following principles of Law and draw your own conclusions, settling the matter in your heart. Never do any thing without the Counsel of the Holy Spirit and the counsel of others in fellowship with you. The Maxims of Law used in the changes, additions, and alterations follow the text, for your edification.

Note: Comments and bolded notes are not to appear in the abatements. They are solely for your edification. Changes and additions are noted following the boxes.

For the original salutary greeting in Chapter One, substitute the following:

"Comes Now, this Good and Lawful Christian Man, grateful to Almighty God for My Liberty in Christ, to humbly Extend Greetings and Salutations to you from my Sovereign Lord, Saviour and Testator Jesus, the Christ, and Myself by Visitation, to exercise His Ministerial Powers in this Matter, in His Name, by His Authority, under Direction of His Warrant, Mandate and Will contained in His Writ, revealed both in His Testament written of Him in Holy Scripture and in Him...."

(Comment: Note carefully what has changed in this salutary greeting. You are not exercising any of your own ministerial powers, but are exercising the ministerial powers appertaining to the high and Sacred Office of Christ, by His Direction, Mandate, and Will evidenced by and in His Testament. Everything you do is solely by His Direction and eliminates, for purposes of Law, a charge of "willfulness" (which implies evil intent) against you. Therefore, you must study Scripture to know and understand what ministerial powers He exercised because if you misuse or abuse His ministerial Powers, you will fail: "Qui alterius jure utitur, eodem jure uti debet--He who uses the right of another ought to use the same right." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2157. Because you are a Good and Lawful Christian means you do everything in His Name and by His Authority, not of your own purported "authority." The words "Warrant," "Writ," "Mandate," and "Direction" are specific and accord with not doing any thing "willfully." You are under yoke, and because you are under yoke, you are directed by the Driver of that yoke--the Testator of the Testament you execute. You have a Law to execute, and that Law is God's Law--the same Law our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ executed. It is the Lawgiver Who justifies you and none other. When you are justified you are excused from performance to any other form of law. This is very critical, for without this justification you are condemned. It is the Lawgiver Who justifies you--by His Warrant--and not your own works or words on paper. If God, through our Sovereign Lord, Saviour and Testator Jesus, the Christ, is not your Lawgiver, you can never be justified, for no Law can justify any one. The high and Sacred Office of Christ is in Law, and so are you if you, and the act you did or failed to do, are in Christ. If not, then you have no standing in Law. In Law, you are in the Garden of Eden protected by the bar of the flaming sword established by God, an ancient landmark (See Deut 27:17; Prov 23:10 and others); outside the Garden of Eden you are without standing in Law, for you have no relationship to the Supreme Lawgiver who alone can justify you, and are at the bar of the Law awaiting judgment, sentence, and execution. )

Add the following in Chapter Two, Secondly:

"Whereas, all Estates originate in and are of Inheritance vested by the Testament of our Sovereign Testator Jesus, the Christ, because by Him all things consist, so that His act establishing the original Estate or state is regarded more in Law for all other estates are derivative from and dependent upon that original Act, quando diversi desiderantur actus ad aliquem statum perficiendum, plus respicit lex actum originalem, for unumquodque est id quod est principalius in ipso, causa et origo est materia negotii, and His Reason for bringing His Estate into being always governs all within and every part derived from His Estate which He created, ratio legis est anima legis, and any act done against His Reason is not Lawful, nihil quod est contra rationem est licitum, for He is Perfection, and in Him is no corruption, evil, error, or sin; and,

(Comment: Note that this goes back to Genesis 1:1. This is highly critical, for without the original act of creation, there are no other estates, inheritable, corporeal, incorporeal, or otherwise. There is no creation without Law--God's Word is Law. By extension, there is no Inheritance without Law. We also see that "cause and origin" are the substance of everything so that God's Law, His Word, is the substance of all things and rules all things created by and under it. All inferior estates are derivative and dependent upon His original Act. Estates are not just land, but also include chattels, powers, vested rights, and duties under the Law or Testament establishing them. There is no higher Testament or Law than God's Testament, written and revealed.)

"Whereas, in that original Act, there is no provision for a person dead in Law, i.e., a legal entity be it a natural person, corporation or any collection of natural persons, to have any Inheritance or any part in the Estate which is formed by, in, or from the original Act of my Sovereign Testator Jesus, the Christ which, when extended, means that your corporation can have no part, i.e., a lien or shetar in or over, any estate derived from that original Act; and,

(Comment: The person(s) we are referring to here are those who are "sons of Adam," the ones who rebel against God: covenant-breakers, whoremongers and the like. God separated them from the church of His Son when He ordered Adam out of the Garden of Eden. See Gen 3:22-24 noting particularly the reason for the banishment. These shall never have any inheritance in the Estate established by the original Act of Christ. God's Warrants to Good and Lawful Christians are given in Scripture: Eph 5:5 and Rev 21:8. Dead in Law are those dead to God, those Godless entities, who are without (outside the Body of) Christ; "for without Me ye can do nothing" --because no one can do an act without Authority of Law and not suffer for it.)

"Whereas, no Good and Lawful Christian possesses the Title of any part of the Estate of Christ, because the earth is the LORD's and the fullness thereof, so that no executor can convey what he or she does not possess, nemo dat qui no habet, and where there is no provision or warrant in the Testament of my Sovereign Testator, of which I am one of several joint heirs and appointed co-executors, to Lawfully grant, convey, transfer, derelict, trade, mortgage, pledge, exchange, surrender or otherwise give up to a person dead in Law all or any part therein, nemo potest nisi quod de jure potest, and pacta quae contra leges constitutionesque vel contra bonos mores fiunt nullam vim habere, indubitati juris est; and,

(Comment: In order for any conveyance or pledge to be Lawful, there must be a Warrant or sanction Authority in the Law. Without such sanction in the Law or Testament, there is no such conveyance or pledge. It cannot be presumed either (see next). executors do not have private absolute title in the estate; but do have possession under Warrant of the Testament they execute in the Testator's Name, Who, in Truth, is the one with Title.)

"Whereas, there is no presumption in Law which presumes that any executor, a Good and Lawful Christian, has authority to encumber or waste the estate of his Testator, so that it is incumbent upon those third persons, i.e. your corporation, who make engagements with the Testator's executor to inquire of his authority to encumber or waste said Inheritance of his Testator, scire debes cum quo contrahis; and,

(Comment: This comes mostly from general court cases concerned with the issues of fiduciaries and executors. This is a general principle of Law which the courts at Law and of law use when presented with such issues. This doctrine is followed and explained in a number of sources concerned with an estate's "property"--the laws concerning inheritance find their source in Numbers 27.)

"Whereas, I can make no engagements Lawful which prejudice either my Testator, His Testament, or His Estate of Inheritance therein, which bind either Him or my Self to any obligations with natural persons dead in Law; and,

(Comment: This is a general principle of Law from the law of slaves, fiduciaries, and executors. If you are under the yoke, you can make no ratifications which affect either the yoke, the Driver of the yoke, or the direction the Driver drives the yoke. But you must remember that if this statement is not true, God will not honor it.)

"Whereas all engagements founded on unlawful consideration are void, and your purported consideration is unlawful, which is error in Law, because it is founded in the blood of the six hundred thousand Christian Saints shed during Lincoln's War against the several consociated Christian states in union, because the principle part of everything is the beginning or origin, unumquodque est id quod est principalius in ipso; cause and origin is the substance of the thing, i.e., your purported consideration, causa et origo est materia negotii; and, to know something is to know its cause and reason, scire proprie est rem ratione et per causam cognoscere, so that no contract which is fruit of the poisoned tree of crime is valid or of any force or effect in Law, contractus ex turpi causa, vel contra bonos mores nullus est and pacta quae contra leges constitutionesque vel contra bonos mores fiunt nullam vim habere, indubitati juris est and crimen omnia ex se nata vitiat; and,

(Comment: This refers errors in Law to their origin, and the reason is that if you refer errors in Law to their origin, you are refuting them: "Errores ad sua principia referre, est refellere--To refer errors to their origin is to refute them." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2133. Therefore, to refer their purported consideration (it is error in Law to give fiction to compel performance of substance--this practice began with Lincoln's War) to its real origin, not just when brought into being; but to the point in time when the commercial power established itself to license the lending corporation, for example, you then have solid ground in God's Law to refute them and stand on the Holy Ground of His Warrant. Law without Truth is not Law; but vain imagination or illusion of law. This then refers to the following maxim of Law "Ex nihilo nihil fit--From nothing nothing comes." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2133. So that because the illusion has no truth, neither is it law. And without Law, consideration cannot exist--note Genesis 1:1. Had Elohim never spoken the Law, the substance of the creation would never have been brought into being.)

"Whereas, he who committeth iniquity, or partakes of the benefit of iniquity, shall not have equity, and because Lincoln's War is founded in crimes against the several Christian states in union then crimen omnia ex se nata vitiat and, nemo allegans suam turpitudinem audien dus est; and,"

Further 'Updates and Comments' and supporting 'Maxims of Law' will be continued in Issue the Twenty-fourth.

Repentance. In the Greek, metanoia (met-an'-oy-ah), metanoeo (met-an-o-eh'-o), repent; to think differently or afterwards, i.e. reconsider (morally, feel compunction): from meta (met-ah'), amid; and noeo (no-eh'-o) or noieo (noy-eh'-o), to exercise the mind (observe), i.e. (figuratively) to comprehend, heed: consider, perceive, think, understand. (Subjectively) compunction (for guilt, including reformation); by implication reversal (of [another's] decision). Strong's Greek and Hebrew Dictionary.

Repentance

"By personal repentance and reformation, we destroy the accursed thing in our own hearts, and, unless we do this, we must never expect the favour of the blessed God. Let all men know that it is nothing but sin that separates between them and God, and, if it be not sincerely repented of and forsaken, it will separate eternally.

National repentance and reformation bring national plenty, peace, and prosperity. It is promised, "The Lord will make thee plenteous," (Deut. 30:9) in the fruit of thy cattle and land, for good. Many have plenty for hurt; the prosperity of fools destroys them. Then it is for good when with it God gives us grace to use it for His glory." Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible.

"The 'Will Not'"

"God's wish is to bless all men; but all men do not choose to be blessed. And this is the difficulty. Jesus says to those whom He would bless, 'Ye will not come unto Me that ye may have life.' There was a 'will not' on the part of those who heard Him. Here is where the road is lost that leads to heaven. This is the voice that turns men from the track, and sends them wandering into forbidden paths. Jesus wept over Jerusalem, and said, 'O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not.' Thus does the Saviour long to bless and save the perishing souls of men, and gather them to His sheltering fold to give them eternal rest. But all God's divine love can avail nothing, so long as the human will is unsubdued and contrary to the divine will. God cannot save us without repentance on our part. God is 'not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.' True repentance will save us, but nothing else can. Jesus can die for us, but He cannot repent for us." -- Rev. W. O. Cushing, Gospel Herald, Nov. 25, 1865, in Centennial of Religious Journalism (1908), pp. 185-187.

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Tennent

When Mr. Whitfield was last in America, Mr. Tennent made him a visit, as he was passing through New jersey; and one day dined with other ministers at a gentleman's house. After dinner, Mr. Whitfield adverted to the difficulties attending the gospel ministry; lamented that all their zeal availed but little; said that he was weary of the burdens of the day; declared the great consolation that in a short time his work would be done, when he should depart and be with Christ; he then appealed to the ministers if it was not their great comfort that they should go to rest. They generally assented, except Mr. Tennent who sat next to Mr. Whitfield in silence, and by his countenance discovered but little pleasure in the conversation--on which Mr. Whitfield tapping him on the knee, said,

"Well, brother Tennent, you are the oldest man among us, do you not rejoice to think that your time is so near at hand, when you shall be called home?"

Mr. Tennent bluntly answered, "I have no wish about it."

Mr. Whitfield pressed him again; Mr. Tennent again answered, "No, sir, it is no pleasure to me at all; and if you knew your duty, it would be none to you. I have nothing to do with death, my business is to live as long as I can--as well as I can--and serve my Master as faithfully as I can, until He shall think proper to bring me home."

Mr. Whitfield still urged for an explicit answer to his question, in case the time of death were left to his own choice.

Mr. Tennent replied, "I have no choice about it; I am God's servant, and have engaged to do His business as long as He pleases to continue me therein. But know, brother, let me ask you a question. What do you think I would say, if I was to send my man into the field to plough; and if at noon I should go to the field and find him lounging under a tree, and complaining, "Master, the sun is very hot, and the ploughing hard, I am weary of the work you have appointed me, and am overdone with the heat and burden of the day. Do, master, let me return home, and be discharged from this hard service." What would I say? Why, "that he was a lazy fellow, that it was his business to do the work that I had appointed him, until I should think fit to call him home."

Issue the Twenty-fifth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

The 'Tax Exempt' Church...

Fictions of law, Part One...

'Good' and Lawful Christian...

In Whose Name?...

Abatement Update, Part Two...

Bits and Pieces...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

The 'Tax Exempt' 501(c) 3 Church

Is it really 'exempt'?

As we have often said in The News, it's all in the words, and the presuppositions behind them. No where is this more important than when we come to consider the lawfulness of the 501(c)3 Church organizations.

Can any of us really presume to understand the words we use when discussing this topic? Obviously not, since the use of any word and its meaning is determined by whose presuppositions control the meaning of the particular word. Clearly, the meaning of a word in the mind of an epistemologically self-conscious Christian, is always radically different than the meaning of the same word in the mind of the Humanist.

But, let us presume, for a minute, that we have gone to great lengths to define the meaning of a word, especially one used in Law, and we have piled up the citations from all the authorities going back several hundred or even thousands of years, and we are as near as possible to being absolutely certain that we know what the word means. Does this mean that someone else will accept the meaning of the word, even if, ostensibly, both people are coming from the same set of presuppositions?

For example, if two Christians are engaging in study, research, and discussion concerning the meaning of a word, and both use the same sources and both come to an interim decision as to what the word means. Does this mean that they agree? No, not hardly.

Why? Because one of the Christians may reject the word's clear meaning because of the implications the meaning carries with it. In simple terms, all ideas have consequences. When dealing with words and their meaning, and one consistently applies a word's meaning to a given task, certain consequences will follow quite logically.

But, there is a fly in the ointment here. And, it has to do with implied meanings that lead to consequences that one might not like to deal with.

He may see these implications immediately and he may not. He may get into the use of the word's meaning and get down the road a'ways and all of sudden, the hidden meaning of the word or idea that he is working on, begins to dawn on him and he begins to dig in his heels and resist the logical consequences of the word's meaning. In this case, the consequences will contradict the word's meaning and he will probably end up an intellectual mess.

Funny thing about words. As it turns out, all meaning is religious. But, most men fail to see this. Thus, they get down the road a'ways and it begins to dawn on them that they are on a road they do not want to be on and this raises a major problem for them. How does the man avoid the real consequences of his word's or idea's meaning? Its nearly impossible for most of us, because we do not want to believe that we have misunderstood the world about us.

Thus, when we come to discuss whether or not one should be involved in a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization, the meaning of words are always charged and the meaning of words and their implications become very important because, if one is a Christian, one does not want to do that which is contrary to the Will of God.

The problem for the King's Men is, when we discuss whether or not a church should get involved in a 501(c)3 corporation or not, we have already done the research, and therefore oppose a Christian's involvement in such corporations.

But, it is next to impossible to get anyone in such a Church to listen to the real facts in the case because the implications of the words are such that they would mean a major turn-about in one's thinking if the 501(c)3 member takes the facts seriously.

In other words, someone who is a member of a 501(c)3 Church corporation is already pre-disposed to believe that there is nothing wrong with his being a member of such a Church. Even trying to get a fair hearing from such a man or woman is like trying to pull hens teeth. The evidence from legal history no matter how broad or how specific, and regardless of the quantity, is not enough to overcome the built-in bias in favor of the 501(c)3 corporation!!!

We have shown time and again that the existing law that dominates the current governments at every level is military and commercial, not lawful, not constitutional, and certainly not Biblical. But, for a man to believe the evidence in the case is nearly as large a task as trying to get him to believe that being a member of a 501(c)3 Church is contrary to the Law of God!!!

Thus, for example, when the debates on Senate Bill 557 (the so-called Civil Rights Restoration Act) took place back in 1988, Sen. Kennedy and others in his camp consistently referred to "religious or church organizations," whereas opponents spoke of defending "religious freedom" and "rights" of the Church.

Now, the whole debate over this question never turned on precisely what the words meant. Indeed, one must say that the entire hullabaloo over this Bill was one of words, full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing!

Obviously, both sides were arguing at cross-presuppositions. Senator Kennedy was using the only term he could concerning the tax exempt status of 501(c)3 churches. His opponents kept using words that were apparently designed to remind everyone of Constitutional rights, which, as we have pointed out so often, are non-existent except in the sense of all rights from the Federal government being the privileged Civil Rights brand.

In simple terms, Senator Kennedy's argument was technically correct, while his opponents argument was based on the belief in Constitutional rights in the classical sense of those rights.

The truth of the matter is, a 501(c)3 church has no rights in the classical sense of 'rights' guaranteed by the First Amendment in the Constitution, because, since Lincoln's War, the controlling foundation for all so-called 'rights' has been the Fourteenth Amendment. Indeed, all they have are 'civil rights' which can be given or taken away at the will of the Courts, the President, or Congress in the face of any 'compelling public need,' or in direct military jargon, 'necessity.'

But, the point is, Kennedy used his words to argue 'as if' a Constitution of some kind existed for 'corporate protection,' and his opponents argued 'as if' there were a real Constitution that protected non-existent 'church rights.' Neither side actually knew what the other side meant by the words they used. There was no communication, to be blunt about it, but only Kennedy knew the real truth, i.e., that the nation is under a permanent state of national emergency amounting to a state of martial law over all 'residents' of all states and territories, leaving The Constitution 'flying in the breeze.'.

The term "organizations" is one of the keys to understanding governmental meddling in the affairs of the church. Nevertheless, a "religious or church organization" is a corporation that functions in a legal capacity, which is, 'doing business as a Church.' The IRS is fully aware of this, and their publications make it clear. Nowhere do they define "tax exempt churches" - they always refer to religious or church "organizations." Surely Cong- ress, in writing the tax law, understands this distinction as well!

Well, maybe they do or maybe they don't. Most of the codes are in fact written for the Congress under a contract they have with WestLaw of Minneapolis, Minnesota. There are perhaps, many Congressmen that know the score, and it is just as likely that there are many who do not know, at least not fully.

A church that voluntarily initiates an application to the state for corporate status expects "limited liability" and "tax exemption." It in turn owes to the state its right to exist and prosper. It is obvious that its legal status and that of its 'flock' has been drastically altered from what it was before incorporation. Incorporated Churches are artificial entities, fictions in law, which may have such "privileges and immunities (limited liabilities)" as are granted by the state.

The U.S. Supreme Court well understands the artificial status of corporations:

"A corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises ... Its powers are limited by law ... It's rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation." Wilson v. U.S., 221 US 382.
"Corporations are not citizens ... The term citizen ... applies only to natural persons ... not to artificial persons created by the legislature ..." Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall 168, 177. (See also, Opinion Field, 16 Wall 36, 99).
"Whenever a corporation makes a contract it is the contract of the legal entity ... The only rights it can claim are the rights which are given to it in that character, and not the rights which belong to its members as citizens of a state." Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet 586.

According to IRS Publication 557, the instruction manual for 501(c)3 organizations, in order to be an "organization" in the legal sense, it is necessary to incorporate.

Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed. defines "organization" as:

"a corporation or governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, partnership or association, two or more persons having a joint or common interest, or any other legal or commercial entity."

Notice that all of the entities in this definition are governmentally franchised, and therefore under the jurisdiction of the Uniform Commercial Code. The definition shows that a corporation (even if it functions as a church) is recognized as commercial and public; an incorporated Church is legally interpreted as a commercial, public entity. Didn't Christ say that His house was not to be a house of merchandise? See John 2:16.

Most States will not 'permit' exempt status until a church applies for and obtains an IRS 501(c)(3) status ruling. This means, of course, that the Church willingly incorporates and submits itself to State and Federal jurisdiction.

IRS Publication 557 Sec. 508(c) provides that churches are not required to apply for recognition of section 501(c)(3) status in order to be exempt from federal taxation or to receive tax-deductible contributions.

The reason is, before the church incorporates as a 501(c)(3) organization, it has standing in a superior form of Law than the I.R.S.. It's only after incorporation that the Church, by incorporating, lowers itself to the same standing as the I.R.S. and thus becomes fully exposed to regulation and control.

This would raise many ethical questions: Why are the churches of today almost always found to be incorporated? Why would the churches elect to place themselves under such jurisdiction; to find regulation under governmental franchise preferable to their own Divine Law?

Are they not in fact serving two masters?

At any rate, we have seen how important the words are and who defines them on what presuppositions. These few examples show clearly that meaning is all important to knowing.

Before closing this short essay, take notice of one more word in the above. We refer to "exempt." The I.R.S. code uses this word a good deal, and allegedly, at least in the minds of churchmen if not in the I.R.S.'s mind, this appears to mean that the church cannot be taxed.

Nothing could be further from the truth, as is evidenced by the Jimmy Swaggart case of a couple years ago, in which, he was required to pay taxes on some transactions that his 'organization' was conducting.

But, the important point about the word 'exempt' is, what are its implications? Clearly, the I.R.S. and the Federal and State governments presume that all the land and property of the 501(c)3 Church potentially belong to the government and only some activities are "exempt" from taxation.

In other words, the word 'exempt' means that all the property of that Church belongs to the State (because its a corporation) but it has a special status that exempts is from paying taxes, unless it steps into a taxable arena.

Think of the gall of the Federal government and its lackey, the I.R.S. It all belongs to them, not God. And, out of the "graciousness of the governments heart," it will exempt certain property held by certain groups, while still retaining the right to tax and seize anytime it wants to.

Do any of these words have any meaning at all for the Reader???

Persons: Natural and Juristic

This will begin a monthly series on 'fictions of law,' those fictions being the humanist creations of the current Roman civil law system which pervades America. All Good and Lawful Christians must learn to identify these non-substantial pagan 'creations,' in order to better exercise our 'Right of Avoidance.' Without this understanding and avoidance, the body of believers will not be capable of occupying the High and Sacred Office in which Christ has called us to, but instead will continue to stumble down the road to Babylon.

Before we examine what 'natural and juristic persons' are, we will first take a look at the basic meaning, within the world system, of 'law,' 'fiction of law,' 'legal fiction,' and supplemental words such as 'person,' and 'equity.'

Law

From Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914):

"Law. The aggregate of rules set by men as politically superior or sovereign, to men as politically subject. p.1876. Aust. Jur., Campbell's ed. 86.

From Webster's 1969 Dictionary:

"Law is the general term signifying a rule laid down or established, whether by custom or as the expression of the will of a person or power able to enforce its demands.
An act, enactment, or statute is a specific law enacted by the lawmaking body of a state, while an ordinance is usually a municipal regulation. These are law only if they do not conflict with the organic law or constitution. Injunction is specifically applied to an order of a court of equity. A formula is a conventional form or a set rule. All such rules having to do with a particular sphere of human activity; as, business law. The branch of knowledge dealing with such rules; jurisprudence.
"Civil law: (a) the Roman law, especially the part that applied to Roman citizenship; (b) the body of law having to do with private rights: it developed from Roman law.
"Moral law: (a) that system of rules of human [*non-Christian/secular] action which has its origin in a general sense of the members of any community of what is right and wrong, and which derives its authority from the general disapprobation of acts contrary to its principles; (b) the decalogue & moral maxims of the Mosaic law [*God's Law].
"Municipal law: a system of rules of human [*secular] action established by the governmental power of a state.
"Statute law: law established by a legislative body. Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969), page 1028. [* Insertions added.]
Human laws. "Laws which have man for their author, as distinguished from divine laws, which have God for their author." Borden v. State, 11 Ark. 519
"Civil Law. 'Civil Law,' 'Roman Law,' and 'Roman Civil Law' are convertible phrases, meaning the same system of jurisprudence." Black's Law Dict. (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 312.

Note above that there is a difference between law and Law, i.e., man's (human/pagan) 'law' as distinguished from God's Law. The organic law (or Law) which one recognizes and adheres to is all important. For, when man's law conflicts with God's organic Law, it is no law at all. As Sir William Blackstone stated, "Any law contrary to the Law of God, is no law at all."

Fiction of Law and Legal Fiction

For a comparative word study on fiction, fabrication, and falsehood, see Page nine at 'Etymologicum Anglicanum.'

FICTION OF LAW. "Something known to be false is assumed to be true." Ryan v. Motor Credit Co., 130 N.J.Eq. 531, 23 A.2d 607, 621.

From Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914):

"Fictions are to be distinguished on the one hand from presumptions of law, and on the other hand from estoppels. A presumption is a rule of law prescribed for the purpose of getting at a certain conclusion, though arbitrary, where the subject is intrinsically liable to doubt from the remoteness, discrepancy, or actual defect of proofs.
"This distinction is thus expressed by a Scotch writer: A fictio juris differs from a presumption. Things are presumed which are likely to be true; but a fiction of law assumes for truth what is either false, or at least is as probably false as true. Fictions of law must in all their effects be always limited to the special purpose of equity for which they were introduced. Ersk. Prin. 531.
"The familiar fictions of the civil law and of the earlier common law were very numerous: but the more useful of them have either been superseded by authorized changes in the law or have gradually grown as it were into distinct principles, forming exceptions or modifications of those principles to evade which they were at first contrived. As there is no just reason for resorting to indirection to do that which might be done directly, fictions are rapidly disappearing before the increasing harmony of our jurisprudence. See 4 Benth. Ev. 300; 2 Pothier, Obl., Evans' Ed. 43. But they have doubtless been of great utility in conducing to the gradual amelioration of the law; and, in this view, fiction, equity, and legislation have been named together as the three instrumentalities in the improvement of the law. They have been employed historically in the order here given. Sometimes two of them will be seen operating together, and there are legal systems which have escaped the influence of one or the other of them. But there is no instance in which the order of their appearance has been changed or inverted. Maine, Anc. Law 24.
"Theoretical writers have classified fictions as of five sorts: abeyance, when the fee of land is supposed to exist for a time without any particular owner during an outstanding freehold estate; 2 Bla. Com. 107; 1 Cruise, Dig. 67; 1 Com. Dig. 175; 1 Viner, Abr. 104; the doctrine of remitter, by which a party who has been disseised of his freehold, and afterwards acquires a defective title, is remitted to his former good title; that one thing done today is considered as done at a preceding time by the doctrine of relation; that, because one thing is proved, another shall be presumed to be true, which is the case in all presumptions; that the heir, executor, or administrator stand by representation in place of the deceased.
"Again they have been classified as of three kinds: positive, when a fact which does not exist is assumed; negative, when a fact which does exist is ignored; and fictions by relation, when the act of one person is taken as if it were the act of a different person; when an act at one time or place is treated as if performed at a different time or place; and when an act in relation to a certain thing is treated as if it were done in relation to another thing which the former represents; Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), pp. 1213-1214.

-------------------------

"Fictio in the old Roman law was properly a term of pleading and signified a false averment on the part of the plaintiff which the defendant was not allowed to traverse; as that the plaintiff was a Roman citizen, when in truth he was a foreigner. The object of the fiction was to give the court jurisdiction; Maine, Anc. Law 25.
"Fictions (of law) are particularly congenial to the infancy of society [*Lincoln's new nation]. They satisfy the desire for improvement [*subver- sion], while they do not offend the disrelish for change [*modernism]. Thus, they become invaluable expedients [*devices] for overcoming the rigidity of law [God's Word]." A Dictionary of Law (1893), by William C. Anderson, page 458 [*Insertions added].
"Legal fiction. 1. In pleadings and other legal writings, a standardized false statement that is not permitted to be exposed, and so serves as a mechanical device to make the law apply where otherwise it would not. E.g., that a corporation is a person, though no one can see it, a legal fiction so standardized that it is often regarded not as a fiction but as a redefinition of person. 3. A standardized rationalization for a judicial conclusion. E.g., the conclusion that regulation is justified because a business is affected with a public interest. Mellinkoff's Dictionary of American Legal Usage (1992), p. 479, by David Mellinkoff (Professor of Law Emeritus, U.C.L.A.).

After making a close study of the above, you find that 'fictions of law' are, first; created to establish man's heathen law, and second; for purposes of acquiring jurisdiction by a strange and foreign commercial State that avoids truth, "for the sake of justice" of course, and third; that a 'fiction of law' is now called a 'legal fiction' which is still a device (artifice) to acquire jurisdiction within a commercial venue 'for the public's sake.' The following maxims of law make it clear that one who partakes of the fictions of man's equity, and not of Law and Truth, is in the wrong place:

"Les fictions naissent de la loi, et non la loi des fictions--Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2142.
"Lex fingit ubi subsistit aequitas --Law creates a fiction where equity exists."
"Fictio juris non est ubi vertias -- Where truth is, fiction of law does not exist."
"Fictio cedit veritati, fictio juris non est ubi veritas --Fiction yields to truth, where the truth appears, there can be no fiction of law."
"Fictio est contra veritatem, sed pro veritate habetur --Fiction is against the truth, but it is to be esteemed truth."
"Fictio legis neminem laedit --A fiction of law injures no one." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxims," p. 2134.
"Fictio legis inique operatur alicui damnum vel injuriam --Fiction of law is wrongful if it works loss or injury to any one." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2143.

In summary, 'fictions of law' and 'legal fictions' are those contrivances and artifices which are created by the ungodly bankrupt State to acquire jurisdiction that it would not otherwise have. As stated above, these 'creations' are "distinct principles, forming exceptions or modifications of those principles to evade which they were at first contrived," "limited to the special purpose of equity for which they were introduced," "great utility in conducing to the gradual amelioration of the law," "man's 'law' always begins with fictions, paving the way for equity and legislation," and most importantly in the fictional law world of the ungodly bankrupt looking for revenue, that "the act of one person is taken as if it were the act of a different person."

As we will see later, this last class is where we find the fictional world of natural and juristic persons.

Person

From Mellinkoff's 1992 Dictionary of American Legal Usage:

"person. An indispensable word with varied, overlapping meanings. Often used without definition, as in the U.S. Constitution (Arts. I, II, III, IV; Amends. IV, V, XII, XIV, XXII). Defined, and redefined, in an endless succession of special purpose statutes, with no assurance to the profession that this is the person you thought you were talking about.
1. A human being--without regard to sex, legitimacy, or competence. This person is the central figure in [*man's Roman Imperial] law....with rights and duties under the law. This is the person, sometimes called an individual, and often referred to in the law as a natural person, as distinguished from an artificial person (sense 3).
3. an artificial person: an abstraction of convenience regarded by the law as a distinct being, having an existence independent of those who create or own it. The classic example of this person is the corporation, a being distinct from its shareholders, [*etc].
4. A legal entity, often described as a person, is itself an expression without uniform meaning: frequently, a synonym of artificial person.
5. A catchall person, avoiding repetition, clarity, and precision, according to the needs of the legal writer...E.g., 'Person means an individual, a corporation, an organization, or other legal entity' (Uniform Probate Code, 1201(29)). Mellinkoff's Dictionary of American Legal Usage (1992), p. 479, by David Mellinkoff (Professor of Law Emeritus, University of California, Los Angeles). [*Insertions added].

Covering the above, full circle, we find:

1. the word person is indispensable, varied, often used without definition, defined and redefined in special purpose statutes for the sake of arbitrariness.

2. a human being, an individual, and a natural person (all meaning the same type of person, a heathen (see 'To Be or Not To Be: A Human Being' in Issue the Sixth) are the central figures in man's 'law.'

3. a legal entity is frequently (arbitrarily) a synonym of artificial person.

4. an individual, a corporation, and an organization are legal entities (which are frequently artificial persons).

Therefore, individuals (human beings and natural persons), can arbitrarily be considered artificial persons.

The above correlates to the following maxim of law:

"Jus quo universitates utuntur est idem quod habent privati --The law which governs corporations is the same as that which governs individuals." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2141.

Equity

"EQUITY. A system of jurisprudence collateral to, and in some respects independent of, "law," properly so-called; the object of which is to render the administration of justice more complete, by affording relief where the courts of law are incompetent to give it, or to give it with effect, or by exercising certain [*commercial] branches of jurisdiction independently of them. This is equity in its proper sense; an elaborate system of rules and process, administered in many cases by distinct tribunals, (termed 'courts of chancery,') and with exclusive jurisdiction over certain subjects [*commerce]. It is 'still distinguished by its original and animating principle that no [*commercial] right should be without a remedy,' and its doctrines are founded upon the same basis of natural justice; but its action has become systematized, deprived of any loose and arbitrary character which might have belonged to it, and be carefully regulated by fixed rules and precedents [*the lex mercatoria] as the law itself.
"Equity, in its technical sense, contradistinguished from natural and universal [*God's] equity or justice, may well be described as a 'portion of justice' or natural equity, not embodied in legislative enactments, or in the rules of common law, yet modified by a due regard thereto and to the complex relations and conveniences of an artificial state of society, and administered in regard to cases where the particular rights [*commercial rights], in respect of which relief is sought come within some general class of rights enforced at law, or may be enforced without detriment or inconvenience to the community; but where, as to such particular rights [*commercial rights], the ordinary courts cannot, or originally did not, clearly afford relief." Rob.Eq.
"Equity is a body of jurisprudence, or field of jurisdiction [*commercial], differing in its origin, theory, and methods from the common law." Laird v. Union Traction Co., 208 Pa. 574, 57 A. 987." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 634. [*Emphasis and Insertions added].

What 'equity' comes down to is, 'a jurisdiction in which one can seek a commercial remedy in a commercial court (Staple Court).' With Mercury (a Greek myth) being the god of commerce, the current bankrupt commercial State can only deal within "an artificial state of society," along with its 'creations,' or 'fictions of law.' Those fictions include: fictional 'persons,' unsigned and unsealed court warrants, unsigned and unsealed computer generated court dockets and IRS assessments, fiat Federal Reserve Notes, bank notes and checks, debased coin, credit cards, etc. The reason behind this, as always, comes down to a maxim of law:

"Extra legem positus est civiliter mortuus --He who is placed out of the law is civilly dead. A bankrupt is, as it were, civilly dead. International Bank v. Sherman, 101 U.S. 406, 25 L.Ed. 866." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 697.

A civilly dead entity, such as the bankrupt United States Government (see 'Admissions and Confessions' in Issue the Sixteenth) and its politically conquered State governments, are therefore lawless, without True power and authority, and can only enforce its 'laws' with a gun barrel.

In 1941, Roscoe Pound, Dean of Harvard Law School, made this quite clear:

"Where history had been taken to be a record of the unfolding of human experience of the idea of liberty, Marx asserted the unfolding or realizing of an economic idea--the idea of satisfying human wants. For some three decades this interpretation remained unnoticed. It was taken up in 1889, got much vogue in continental Europe in the last decade of the century and came to the United States at the beginning of the present century, where it has had increasing vogue. Out of it has grown what is called 'economic determinism,' a doctrine that all the phenomena of law and government are necessarily and inexorably determined by purely economic causes; that every act of legislation and every exercise of the judicial function is inevitably in the nature of things dictated and shaped by the self-interest of the dominant social and economic class in a society which, by a like necessity, will be class organized until the ultimate doing away with private property. The legal order is a regime of force, the force of a politically organized society, applied at the instance of a socially and economically dominant class upon those whom that class is able to constrain. Thus, law is what ever is done officially in the way of imposing the force of such a society upon those subject thereto. The motivation of imposing of that force is purely economic [*commercial]. Precepts and principles and doctrines and ideals are illusion or superstition or wishful thinking. They are used to cover up results reached independently on a purely economic basis." 'Administrative Law,' by Roscoe Pound (1941), pp. 116-118.

True equity is God's equity. God requires man to follow His Law, thereby bringing True equity into its proper sphere. But when the earthly man took it upon himself to redefine equity, he perverted it. From early times, that perversion continues as a constant and exerted effort to suit the interests of the commercial Church and State. As the Word of God shows, there is nothing new under the sun:

"Hear this, I pray you, ye heads of the house of Jacob, and princes of the house of Israel, that abhor judgment, and pervert all equity. They build up Zion with blood, and Jerusalem with iniquity. The heads thereof judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money: yet will they lean upon the LORD, and say, Is not the LORD among us? none evil can come upon us." Micah 3:9-11

"But with righteousness shall He judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and He shall smite the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips shall He slay the wicked." Isa 11:4
"Before the LORD; for He cometh to judge the earth: with righteousness shall He judge the world, and the people with equity." Ps 98:9

And for those who contrive, enforce, and partake of the fictions of law and the iniquity thereof, God will have equity:

"Behold, the LORD's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither His ear heavy, that it cannot hear: But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid His face from you, that He will not hear. For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue hath muttered perverseness. None calleth for justice, nor any pleadeth for truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity. They hatch cockatrice' eggs, and weave the spider's web: he that eateth of their eggs dieth, and that which is crushed breaketh out into a viper. Their webs shall not become garments, neither shall they cover themselves with their works: their works are works of iniquity, and the act of violence is in their hands. Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their paths. The way of peace they know not; and there is no judgment in their goings: they have made them crooked paths: whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace. Therefore is judgment far from us, neither doth justice overtake us: we wait for light, but behold obscurity; for brightness, but we walk in darkness. We grope for the wall like the blind, and we grope as if we had no eyes: we stumble at noonday as in the night; we are in desolate places as dead men. We roar all like bears, and mourn sore like doves: we look for judgment, but there is none; for salvation, but it is far off from us. For our transgressions are multiplied before thee, and our sins testify against us: for our transgressions are with us; and as for our iniquities, we know them; In transgressing and lying against the LORD, and departing away from our God, speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart, of falsehood. And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter." Isa 59:1-14

And for those who seek The Way, The Truth, and The Life; who put on the helmet of salvation, and partake of the mind of Christ, they too will receive God's equity:

"My son, if thou wilt receive My words, and hide My commandments with thee; So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding; Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God. For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of His mouth cometh knowledge and understanding. He layeth up sound wisdom for the righteous: He is a buckler to them that walk uprightly. He keepeth the paths of judgment, and preserveth the way of His saints. Then shalt thou understand righteousness, and judgment, and equity; yea, every good path. When wisdom entereth into thine heart, and knowledge is pleasant unto thy soul; Discretion shall preserve thee, understanding shall keep thee: To deliver thee from the way of the evil man, from the man that speaketh froward things; Who leave the paths of uprightness, to walk in the ways of darkness; Who rejoice to do evil, and delight in the frowardness of the wicked; Whose ways are crooked, and they froward in their paths:" Prov 2:1-15

Persons - Natural and Juristic

From Smith's Elementary Law:

"39. Persons, in law, are entities [*artificial persons] having capacity to own or be bound by legal rights.
"In General. The capacity to be the subject or owner of a legal right is the ability to control or influence the acts of others with the aid of the state, whereas the capacity to be bound by legal rights is the ability to act so as to subject oneself to the correlative conditions imposed by the legal rights of others. Any entity capable of having legal rights and acting so as to assume legal duties or incur legal liabilities has the status of a legal person, and possesses legal personality.
"Natural and Juristic Persons
"Legal personality is conferred by the [*Roman imperial] law upon two classes of persons, natural and juristic. The former is composed of human beings; the latter, of the state, municipalities, and private corporations. And, although the legal personality of a juristic person may be limited in certain particulars by reason of the nature of such a person, to the extent that it is conferred the legal personality of a juristic person is as effective as that of a natural person. On the other hand, not all natural persons have complete legal personalities and may thus be distinguished by their 'normal' and 'abnormal' legal personalities. For example, a natural person may be said to have a 'normal' legal personality when he has the capacity to enforce [*civil] rights in court, assume legal duties [*prescribed by code, rule or regulation], and incur civil and criminal liabilities; whereas such a person has an 'abnormal' legal personality when he does not have all of these capacities. Such abnormality, or an incapacity precluding a natural person from having complete legal personality, may be the consequence of any of the following conditions: (1) infancy; (2) marriage; (3) alienage; (4) mental infirmity; or, (5) conviction of a crime. Smith, Elementary Law (1939), pp. 112-113. [*Insertions and emphasis added. The terms "legal," "person" and "owner" are Roman law terms.]

The important word above is 'alienage.' To avoid the fiction known as 'legal personality' of a natural person (same as the natural man, see II Cor. 2:14), the Christian must remain within the forum state of Christendom, under Jesus, the Christ; and not partake of 'the unclean thing.'

"A juristic person is domestic in the [*forum] state by which it was created (or by which it was expressly authorized). This theory has met with considerable support, especially in the United States, where indeed it may be said to be the accepted doctrine. Nationality in the present sense, as the factor which determines by what rules of law its legal constitution and capacities must be governed, is a juridical and not a political quality, and should therefore be determined by the legal and not by the political characteristics of the juristic person." E. Hilton Young, The Nationality of a Juristic Person, 22 Harv.L.R. 1, 3, 7. [Emphasis and insertion added.]

The above also applies to 'natural persons.' Therefore, if you take on the legal personality of a natural person or are legally associated (employment or membership) with a juristic person, you can never raise the political argument concerning your Christian standing.

"Private law recognizes the following classes of juristic persons:
1. The state, or the governing social entity, in its private legal relations. In this respect the dominant entity does not authoritively represent its interests by virtue of its attribute of sovereignty. Its activity here is the same as that of any free Citizen in the state in the satisfaction of private economic necessities [*commerce]. In this activity a state is called the fiscus, or treasury, in contradistinction to the activity in which the state represents the public interests of the community by sovereign law in the governing sense (res publica).
"2. Public communities within the state, which represent public interests; thus, municipalities, parishes, towns, provinces, and similar communities.
"3. Aggregates of persons, such as associations (corporations) arising from joint concurrence or agreement, which have legal interests, in that the law gives them a legal position. According to the conditions of the legal recognition of their juristic personality such corporations (collegia, corpora) are: guilds and industrial fraternities, and those privileged aggregates of persons which are under state supervision (collegia sodalica); for example, the Roman collegia funeraticia, and modern associations for accident, age and health insurance. These associations under recognition have social objects as opposed to objects of the state or of individuals [*eleemosynaries].
"4. Associations for profit (societates quaestuariae), which the law specially invests with the capacity for having [*commercial] rights; thus, share companies, registered associations, and mining companies, in the modern law.
"5. [*501(c)3] Churches, churchly associations and institutions.
"6. Foundations, that is, complexes of property which are recognized by the law as holders of [*commercial] rights for the accomplishment of certain limited objects [*limited liability] piae causae, etc." Gareis' Science of Law, 15. [*Insertions added].

The preceding is a very limited coverage of a vast and sometimes complicated subject. To cut through and avoid all of the hills and valleys of humanist reason, and the fictions created thereby, one simply needs to hear and understand the Words of Our Lord and Saviour for The Truth:

"And He said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers." Luke 11:46
"Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered." Luke 11:52
"Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops." Luke 12:1-3
"Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on Him, If ye continue in My word, then are ye My disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Jn 8:31-32

(but those who don't believe on Me )

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." John 8:44

(More 'fictions of law' within A. Lincoln's Temple in Issue the Twenty-sixth)

'Good' and Lawful Christian

We've had many enquiries recently, and in the past, concerning the phrase and status of "Good and Lawful Christian" which appears in the Abatements and much of the writing of The King's Men. Most of the questions concern the word 'Good.' Many have gone so far as to state that the term should not be used because Scripture says, "call no man good." There is no such verse or phrase!!

A little basic "hermeneutics" used by the people enquiring would have eliminated the typical proof-texting above, which is so well taught by the 501(c)3 commercial Churches and Church T.V. And, of course, if one uses the 'new and improved' commercially copyrighted versions such as the NIV (New Idiots Version), the RSV (Revised Stupid Version) or other modern blasphemous ilk, you're lost before you get started. The King James Bible and Geneva Bible are the only Holy Writs which have standing in Law, due to the ancient document rule!!

The verses quoted for the misconception, "call no man good," springs from Matthew 19:16-17 (see also Mark 10:17-18 and Luke 18:18-19):

"And, behold, one came and said unto Him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And He said unto him, Why callest thou Me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Matt 19:16-17

To clarify these verses for you, we will use, first and foremost, Scripture, and in addition, commentaries by George Clark, Matthew Henry, and Daniel Kerr.

Our first rule of evidence is from Scripture: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." 1 Thes 5:21.

Using this as our basis, we must then search for the phrase or verse which would relate to never calling any man 'good.'

Firstly, if you go to Scripture and look at the context of the verses upon which the above phrase is erroneously inferred (never stated), you find that the context is very limited in scope and relates to only one thing--public confession and recognition of the Truth. From Clark's Commentaries on Matthew 19:17:

17. Why callest thou me good: the young man addressed Jesus as a mere human teacher, yet called Him "Good," which could absolutely be applied only to God. So in Mark and Luke. But the old manuscripts and the Revised version, in this place, omit "good" before "Master," in verse 16, and read this verse: "Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good." Your question is needless. Only One is absolutely good, and that is God. In Him, in His Will and Law, is the True good of men. [*see also further, Matthew Henry's Commentary].

Secondly, you find that the Old Testament refers to "a good man' several times (see Ps 37:23, Ps 112:5, Prov 12:2, Prov 13:22, Prov 14:14, etc.).

Thirdly, you find that Jesus, the Christ Himself , Luke, and The Apostle Paul refer to good men:

"A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things." Matt 12:35
"A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abun dance of the heart his mouth speaketh." Luke 6:45
"And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor; and he was a good man, and a just:" Luke 23:50
"Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch. Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord. For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord." Acts 11:22-24.

Let us look at the three places all related to the same subject matter and the same men, and Matthew Henry's Commentaries on the discourses. I will defer to the learned Brother Henry for his input on the subject, for he is certainly more insightful than I:

"And, behold, one came and said unto Him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? "And He said unto him, Why callest thou Me good? There is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Matthew 19:16-17.
"Here is an account of what passed between Christ and a hopeful young gentleman that addressed himself to Him upon a serious errand; he is said to be a young man (v. 20); and I called him a gentleman, not only because he had great possessions, but because he was a ruler (Luke xviii 18), a magistrate, a justice of peace in his country; it is probable that he had abilities beyond his years, else his youth would have debarred him from the magistracy.
"Now concerning this young gentleman, we are told how fair he bid for heaven and came short.
"I. How fair he bid for heaven, and how kindly and tenderly Christ treated him, in favour to good beginnings. Here is,
"1. The gentleman's serious address to Jesus [*the] Christ (v. 16); Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? Not a better question could be asked, nor more gravely.
"(1.) He gives Christ an honourable title, Good Master--didaskalos agathos. It signifies not a ruling but a teaching Master. His calling Him Master, bespeaks his submissiveness, and willingness to be taught; and good Master, his affection and peculiar respect to the Teacher, like that of Nicodemus, Thou art a Teacher come from God. We read not of any that addressed themselves to Christ more respectfully than that Master in Israel and this ruler. It is a good thing when men's quality and dignity increase their civility and courtesy. It was gentleman-like to give this title of respect to Christ, not withstanding the present meanness of his appearance. It was not usual among the Jews to accost their teachers with the title of good; and therefore this bespeaks the uncommon respect he had for Christ. Note, Jesus [*the] Christ is a good Master, the best of teachers; none teaches like Him; He is distinguished from His goodness, for He can have compassion on the ignorant; he is meek and lowly in heart.
"(2.) He comes to Him upon an errand of importance (none could be more so), and he came not to tempt Him, but sincerely desirous to be taught by Him. His question is, What good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? By this it appears, [1.] That he had a firm belief of eternal life; he was no Sadducee. He was convinced that there is another world, who is prepared for it in this world. [2.] That he was concerned to make it sure to himself that he should live eternally, and was desirous of that life more than of any of the delights of this life. It was a rare thing for one of his age and quality to appear so much in care about another world. The rich are apt to think it below them to make such an enquiry as this; and young people think in time enough yet; but here was a young man, and a rich man, solicitous about his soul and eternity. [3.] That he was sensible something must be done, some good thing, for the attainment of this happiness. It is by patient continuance in well-doing that we seek for immortality, Rom ii 7. We must be doing, and doing that which is good. The blood of Christ is the only purchase of eternal life (He merited it for us), but obedience to Christ is the appointed way to it, Heb v 9. [4.] That He was, or at least thought himself, willing to do what was to be done for the obtaining of this eternal life. Those that know what it is to have eternal life, and what it is to come short of it, will be glad to accept of it upon any terms. Such a holy violence does the kingdom of heaven suffer. Note, While there are many that say, Who will show us any good? our great enquiry should be, What shall we do, that we may have eternal life? What shall we do, to be forever happy, happy in another world? For this world has not that in it that will make us happy.
"2. The encouragement that Jesus [*the] Christ gave to this address. It is not His manner to send any away without an answer, that come to Him on such an errand, for nothing pleases Him more, v. 17. In His answer, "(1.) He tenderly assists his faith, for, doubtless, He did not mean it for a reproof, when He said, Why callest thou Me good? But He would seem to find that faith in what he said, when he called him good Master, which the gentleman perhaps was not conscious to himself of; he intended no more than to own and honour Him as a good man, but Christ would lead him to own and honour Him as a good God; for there is none good but one, that is God. Note, As Christ is graciously ready to make the best that He can of what is said or done amiss; so He is ready to make the most that can be of what is well said and well done. His constructions are often better than our intentions; as in that, "I was hungry, and you gave me meat, though you little thought that it was to Me." Christ will have this young man either know Him to be God, or not call Him good; to teach us to transfer to God all the praise that is at any time given to us. Do any call us good? Let us tell them all goodness is from God, and therefore not to us, but to Him give glory. All crowns must lie before His throne. Note, God only is good, and there is none essentially, originally, unchangeably, good, but God only. His goodness is of and from Himself, and all the goodness in the creature is from Him; He is the Fountain of goodness, and whatever the streams are, all the springs are in Him, James 1:17. He is the great Pattern and sample of goodness; by Him all goodness is to be measured; that is good which is like Him, and agreeable to His Mind. We in our language call Him God, because He is good. In this, as in other things, our Lord Jesus was the Brightness of His glory (and His goodness is His glory), and the express image of His person, and therefore fitly called good Master.
"(2.) He plainly directs His practice, in answer to his question. He started that thought of His being good, and therefore God, but did not stay upon it, lest He should seem to divert from, and so to drop, the main question, as many do in needless disputes and strifes of words. Now Christ's answer is, in short, this, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Matthew Henry, Commentaries on the Bible, vol. v, pp. 272-274.

-------------------------

"And when He was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to Him, and asked Him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou Me good? There is none good but One, that is, God." Mark:10:17-18.
"I. Here is a hopeful meeting between Christ and a young man; such he is said to be (Mt. 19:20,22), and a ruler (Lu. 18:18), a person of quality. Some circumstances here are, which we had not in Matthew, which makes his address to Christ very promising.
"1. He came running to Christ, which was an indication of his humility; he laid aside the gravity and grandeur of a ruler, when he came to Christ: thus too he manifested his earnestness and importunity; he ran as one in haste, and longing to be in conversation with Christ. He had now an opportunity of consulting this great Prophet, in the things that belonged to his peace, and he would not let slip the opportunity.
"2. He came to Him when he was in the way, in the midst of company: he did not insist upon a private conference with Him by night, as Nicodemus did, though like him he was a ruler, but when he shall find him without, will embrace that opportunity of advising with him, and not be ashamed, (Cant. 8:1).
"3. He kneeled to Him, in token of the great value and veneration he had for Him, as a teacher come from God, and his earnest desire to be taught by Him. He bowed the knee to the Lord Jesus, as one that would not only do obedience to Him now, but would yield obedience to Him always; he bowed the knee, as one that meant to bow the soul to Him.
"4. His address to Him was serious and weighty; Good Master, what shall I do, that I may inherit eternal life? Eternal life was an article of his creed, though then denied by the Sadducees, a prevailing party: he asks, What shall he do now that he may be happy for ever. Most men enquire for good to be had in this world (Ps. 4:6), any good; he asks for good to be done in this world, in order to the enjoyment of the greatest good in the other world; not, Who will make us to see good? But, "Who will make us to do good?" He enquires for happiness in the way of duty; the summum bonum--chief good which Solomon was in quest of, was that good for the sons of men which they do should do, (Eccl. 2:3). Now this was,
"(1.) A very serious question in itself; it was about eternal things, and his own concern in those things. Note, Then there begins to be some hope of people, when they begin to enquire solicitously, what they shall do to get to heaven.
"(2.) it was proposed to a right Person, one that was every way fit to answer it, being Himself the Way, the Truth, and the Life, the true way to life, to eternal life; Who came from heaven on purpose, first to lay open for us, and then to lay open to us; first to make, and then to make known, the way to heaven. Note, Those who would know what they shall do to be saved, must apply themselves to Christ, and enquire of Him; it is peculiar to the [*the] Christian religion, both to show eternal life, and to show the way to it.
"(3.) it was proposed with a good design-- to be instructed. We find this same question put by a lawyer, not kneeling, but standing up (Lu. 10:25), with a bad design, to pick quarrels with Him; he tempted Him, saying, Master, what shall I do? It is not so much the good words as the good intention of them that Christ looks at.
"5. Christ encouraged this address, "(1.) By assisting his faith, v. 18. He called Him good Master; Christ would have him mean thereby, that he looked upon Him to be God, since there is none good but One, that is God, who is One, and his name One, (Zech. 14:9). Our English word God doubtless hath affinity with good; as the Hebrews name God by his power, Elohim, the strong God; so we by his goodness, the good God. Matthew Henry, Commentaries on the Bible, vol. v, pp. 518-520.

-------------------------

"And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? None is good, save one, that is, God." Luke:18:18-19.
In these verses we have,
I. Christ's discourse with a ruler, that had a good mind to be directed by Him in the way to heaven. In which we may observe,
"1. It is a blessed sight to see persons of distinction in the world distinguish themselves from others of their rank by their concern about their souls and another life. Luke takes notice of it that he was a ruler. Few of the rulers had any esteem for Christ, but here was one that had; whether a church or state ruler does not appear, but he was one in authority.
"2. The great thing we are every one of us concerned to enquire after is what we shall do to get to heaven, what we shall do to inherit eternal life. This implies such a belief of an eternal life after this as atheists and infidels have not, such a concern to make it sure as a careless unthinking world have not, and such a willingness to comply with any terms that it may be made sure as those have not who are resolvedly devoted to the world and the flesh.
"3. Those who would inherit eternal life must apply themselves to Jesus [*the] Christ as their Master, their teaching Master, so it signifies here (didaskale), and their ruling Master, and so they shall certainly find Him. There is no learning the way to heaven but in the school of Christ, by those that enter themselves into it, and continue in it.
"4. Those who come to Christ as their Master must believe Him to have not only a divine mission, but a divine goodness. Christ would have this ruler know that if he understood himself aright in calling Him good, he did, in effect, call him God and indeed he was so (v. 19): "Why callest thou me good? Thou knowest there is none good but One, that is, God; and dost thou then take me for God? If so, thou art in the right." Matthew Henry, Commentaries on the Bible, vol. v, pp. 778-779.

The subject matter was one of great importance: the Truth our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, revealed to the young man. Truth is always good, and our Lord certainly is that and more. How then does this relate to a "Good and Lawful Christian?"

"Christian.
"The meaning of the word Christian is a follower of Christ. They who embrace the opinions and sentiments of others, and look up to them for direction and instruction in any of the arts and sciences, or in any of the systems of religion [*of the world], are properly their disciples; and are generally distinguished by certain distinctive and appropriate names, descriptive of such discipleship and adherence to particular systems. Hence the followers of Pythagoras and Plato are denominated Pythagoreans and Platonists, and the followers of Mahomet, Mahometans, after their several masters. And hence the followers of Christ are called Christians, after Christ their Master. And it should be considered a matter of no little importance to the followers of Christ, to be distinguished by no other title than that of Christian, a name every way suitable to their holy profession, and as entirely adapted to their peculiar circumstances, as being the disciples of Him who has said His kingdom is not of this world. If this name, as we believe, be of divine appointment, it very forcibly occurs that no option is left to the disciple of Christ as to the choice of names. He must take that name which his Master has given him, and with His consent be called by no other. His enemies, by way of derision, may stigmatize him by any epithet they may think proper to use. But for himself, let him rejoice and not be ashamed to suffer as a Christian. There is something strange in the idea, that the disciples of Christ should consent to be called by other names, even by those of other eminent disciples, such as Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and so forth. It might be asked in the language of the apostles, Were these eminent saints and reformers crucified for you? or were you baptized in their names? And if you were not baptized in their names, how can you with consistency be denominated after them? I know that many pious and holy persons attach little or no importance to names; and conceive that if they possess the thing signified by the same, it is a matter of no importance by what name they may be called. In this indifferency about names, many errors have been committed. The name Christian, with the thing signified thereby, constitutes the sum total of religion. It is always proper and correct to call things by their appropriate names. If we are Christians, why not be called by this title and no other? A rigid adherence to this course would long since have ended these divisions and sub-divisions which most painfully harass and perplex the church of Christ; but there are some who contend that the name Christian was bestowed upon the disciples at Antioch by their enemies, as an appellation of reproach. For this opinion I can find no evidence, either in the word of God or elsewhere. We may, therefore, conclude it to be a mere assumption. In opposition, however, to the notion that the name Christian was first applied to the disciples by their enemies in a way of reproach, we will adduce two witnesses, whose authority in such matters will not be called in question. The first is Dr. Adam Clark, who, in his criticism upon the original word rendered in Acts 11:26, were called, expressed himself thus:
"'It signifies in the New Testament, to appoint, warn, or nominate by divine direction. In this case the word is used, Matt. 2:12; Luke 2:26; Acts 10:22.
"'If, therefore, the name was given by divine appointment, it was most likely that Saul and Barnabas were directed to give it; and, that therefore, the name Christian is from God, as well as that grace and holiness which are essentially required and implied in the character!'

The Doctor continues,

"'A Christian, therefore, is the highest character which any human being can bear upon earth; and to receive it from God, as these appear to have done, how glorious the title!'
"The next is the pious and learned Mr. Davis, who wrote a sermon expressly on this subject, and in which he uses this language:
"The original, which is here rendered called, seems to intimate that they were called Christians by divine appointment, for it generally signifies an oracular nomination, or declaration from God; and to this purpose it is generally translated. Hence, it follows that the very name Christians, as well as the thing was a divine original; assumed, not by a private agreement of the disciples among themselves, but by the appointment of God. In this view, it is a remarkable accomplishment of an old prophecy of Isaiah, 62:2.'
"These views have been submitted, not with a design of impugning others, but for the purpose of exhibiting some of the reasons which influence us firmly and strictly to adhere to the Christian name. This rigid adherence to a name, may be a subject of sport or derision to some, and of contempt and scorn to others. But still, experience and observations unitedly conspire to satisfy our minds completely, that too great particularity, in religious matters, even in external things themselves, can hardly be used. The Bible is the only criterion for regulating and guiding our course in relation to all religious concerns. No Christian man can esteem a strict and rigid conformity to its requisitions of little importance. What that book inculcates must bind the consciences of all true believers; and as we make this the standard of our religious opinions and faith, we dare not depart from it even in the selection of a name. Who but must wish that all the party names, which the circumstances of the church from time to time have given rise to, and the strife and contention which have accompanied them, were entirely obliterated, and their efforts forgotten forever? The religion of the New Testament, when divested of mysticism, is a beautiful and most interesting scheme, entirely adapted to the wants and circumstances of fallen man. Its peculiar excellency consists in the simplicity of the means exhibited and insisted upon for their recovery and restoration. These means are, repentance towards God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Here no perplexity is presented. The conditions are plain and simple; and imply just what the awakened sinner feels to be the case--an utter inadequacy to save himself. When, by the grace of God, which is freely offered to all, the sinner feels the force and power of divine truth freeing him from guilt and sin, and renewing him in the spirit of his mind, and enabling him to cry Abba, Father; it will then be his duty to make a profession of faith in Christ, and his subjection to Him. Now, in Scripture language, he has put on Christ, and he has thus received Christ Jesus the Lord, so should he walk in Him; and he is exhorted by the apostle not to return again to the weak and beggarly elements of the world. How incongruous that such a one should take upon himself any other appellation besides the one descriptive of his connection with Christ as a follower and disciple!"--Rev. Daniel W. Kerr, editor for the Christian Sun, February 17, 1844, in The Centennial of Religious Journalism (1908), pp. 112-117.

You are not calling yourself God when you use the High and Noble calling of 'Good and Lawful Christian.' All 'Good' comes from God. You are simply letting the world know Who's 'Lawful' yoke you are under, and the 'Good' blessings received under that Lawful yoke, known as "the good treasures of the heart," by and through Jesus, the Christ, alone: for "the good seed are the children of the kingdom." (see Matthew 13:38).

Considering all of the foregoing, you can only call yourself, or another Brother or Sister, a "Good and Lawful Christian" when you have truly submitted to Him, and are truly under His yoke. If not, you are taking the Lord's name in vain, you are a liar, and you will pay the ultimate price on Judgment Day for such blasphemy.

In Whose Name?--

Sifting the Wheat from chaff, Light from darkness, Life from death

by John Joseph

Many of you have called us on the phone and have heard us ask "In Whose Name do you call?," and have probably wondered what it is we're talking about. Well, this article is to explain what Scripture says concerning this question, because there is Warrant for doing this very act. It also happens to be a part of our Christian history and heritage, which will be shown later in this article.

First, let me get something off my chest that has been eating at me for some time. We recently received a letter from a patron who denounced what he calls "ivory tower theory" that he believes we publish in the News, and said that he would not be renewing. Fine, I thought. This is just more chaff falling by the wayside. But I got to thinking about this a little deeper and on reflection of his statements, I will say this: The problem is not the "ivory tower theory" and it is not with us--it is with those who "have not studied to show themselves approved of God." Obviously these types are too ashamed to admit to themselves that they are not that "workman who needeth not be ashamed." They are still on the breast having never been weaned from it, and too afraid to touch any meat. I am not here to justify what is or is not published in the News. Brother Michael Andrew's encounter in court certainly was "ivory tower theory" being put into practice and use. Now, I will say this--if those who believe that "ivory tower theory" is nothing, fine. I challenge you, then, to draw up Lawful process, derived solely from Scripture, without a theory of the case. Further, drop the Non-Statutory Abatement from your arsenal, because that has about four years work of "ivory tower theory" behind it and about two and one-half years of solid Blessings behind it. It is one thing to criticize, but quite another to present a solution. If you cannot or will not provide a solution, then we do not want to hear from you. It is not our calling at the News to provide "off the shelf" solutions for everyone's problem. You can find "off the shelf" solutions at the office of your local bar fly (bar attorney)--look at all those code books!!! You can take off that helmet of salvation and have some real drivel poured into your head--none of it having any salvation in and of the Lord. Now that's "off the shelf, Babylon tower theory."

If you don't want any more "ivory tower theory," then go to the entertainment section of your local newspaper and you need not read this article any further. Neither do I want any of your empty, dead, and Babylon tower "fellowship."

With that off my chest, on to more of that "ivory tower theory."

Note: All insertions in brackets [*] are mine.

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is He that is in you, than he that is in the world." 1 John 4:1-4.

What is our Brother saying to us? That every man that comes to us, whether with a tin plate on his chest, or not, is a ministerial officer for someone. They minister for either the Christ or they do not. So he tells us how to sift the fakes from the substantial Good and Lawful Christian. Question: "Is there Warrant in Scripture for separation by Law?" The answer is "yes."

Our Brother has in deed shown us that a Warrant does exist in Scripture to avoid (not evade) this, because another Brother puts it this way:

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?" 2 Cor 6:14-16a.

This is further supported by our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, for Whom we minister:

"My sheep hear My Voice, and I know them, and they follow Me [*not someone else]:" John 10:27.

Obviously confusion is the result if you try to follow two different shepherds at the same time--bifurcation or double-mindedness. How do you sift the "wheat from the chaff?" Good and Lawful Christians minister for One and only One Sovereign--Jesus, the Christ. Make no mistake about this. This is a matter of culture that raises a political question. Thus no earthly court can adjudicate it, because the judgment was already rendered. Where, you ask? In Genesis 3:22-24 when Adam was banished--God separated Adam from fellowship with Himself. This is the way the church must look at its Law.

Stare decisis is a doctrine found in Scripture. The Judgment at Genesis 3:22-24 was clearly executed by our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ. All judgments, especially those rendered by God, are always taken to be true:

"Semper praesmunitur pro sententia --Presumption is always in favor of a judgment." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2162.
"Judicium semper pro veritate accipitur --A judgment is always taken for truth." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2140.
"Res judicata pro veritate accipitur --A thing adjudged must be taken for truth." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2161.
"the ungodly [*sons of Adam] shall not stand in the judgment [*they are already condemned], nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous [*they have not repented of their evil deeds]." Ps 1:5.

Who has the standing, in Law, to challenge God's Judgments? No one, "for all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God." But Christians always have standing to challenge earthly judgments:

"No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of Me, saith the LORD." Is 54:17.
"Judicium a non suo judice datum nullius est momenti --A judgment given by an improper judge is of no force." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2140.
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Cor 6:9-10.
"For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man [*real estate speculator, broker, banker, merchant, IRS agent, and other such 'persons'], who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." Eph 5:5.

One who wears a tin plate on his chest is obviously ministering a "law" separate, distinct, foreign and strange to the Good and Lawful Christian. Generally speaking, the first thing they want from you is confirmation of "legal personality." Is this evil in itself? Not according to the Word of God:

"Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy." Is 54:16.

This is God's Rod of correction to correct the Christian when he walks out of the protection of our Father, by putting Him behind them. When does the act of the officer become evil? When he violates the Warrant of Scripture exercised by the Good and Lawful Christian to avoid, not evade, his imposition. Thus, if you are a hot-headed "patriot" you go against God, for you have not the Law on your heart, and cannot discern the wheat from the chaff, "for you can do all things within your self which mortifies you" because you have your "constitutional and civil rights."

But if you are a Good and Lawful Christian, you use the protection of the Law to avoid, not evade, the issue. To avoid with Truth and Law is not evil; evasion is evil, for it is done by deceit and artifice to escape the consequences of an unlawful act (see "In Vinculis--Justification and Excuse by and through Resting in Christ alone.")

Now how do we implement this "ivory tower theory?" John Winthrop, governor of Massachusetts Bay, said this in 1637:

"For clearing of such scruples as have arisen about his order, it is to be considered, first, what is the essential forme of a common weale or body politic such as this, which I conceive to be this--The consent of a certaine companie of people, to cohabite together, under one government for their mutual safety and welfare.
"It is clearly agreed, by all, that the care of safety and welfare was the original cause or occasion of common weales and of many familyes subjecting themselves to rulers and laws; for no man hath lawfull power over another, except by birth or consent, so likewise, by the law of proprietye, no man can have just interest in that which belongeth to another, without his consent.
"From the premises will arise these conditions:
"1. No common weale can be founded but by free consent.
"2. The persons so incorporating have a public and relative interest each in other, and in the place of their cohabitation and goods, and laws, &c. and in all the means of their welfare so as none other can claime priviledge with them but by free consent.
"3. The nature of such an incorporation tyes every member thereof to seek out and entertaine all means that may conduce to the wellfare of the bodye, and to keepe off whatsoever doth appeare to theire damage.
"4. The wellfare of the whole is to be put to apparent hazard for the advantage of particular members.
"From these conclusions I thus reason.
"1. If we here be a corporation established by free consent, if the place of our cohabitation be our owne, then no man hath right to come into us &c. without our consent.
"2. If no man hath right to our lands, our government privileges, &c. but by our consent, then it is reason we should take notice of before we conferre any such upon them.
"3. If we are bound to keepe off whatsoever appears to tend to our ruine and damage, then we may lawfully refuse to receive such whose dispositions suite not with ours and whose society (we know) will be hurtfull to us, and therefore it is lawful to take knowledge of all men before we can receive them.
"4. The churches take liberty (as lawfully they may) to receive or reject at their discretion; yea particular towns make orders to the like effect; why then should the common weale be denied the like liberty and the whole restrained than any parte?
"5. If it be sinne in us to deny some men place &c. among us, then it is because of some right they have to this place &c. for to deny a man that which he hath no right unto is neither sinne nor injury.
"6. If strangers have right to our houses or lands, &c. then it is either of justice or of mercye; if of justice let them plead it, and we shall know what to answer; but if it be only in way of mercye, or by the rule of hospitality, &c. then I answer 1st, A man is not a fit object of mercye except he be in miserye. 2d, We are not bound to exercise mercye to others to the ruine of ourselves. 3d, There are few that stand in neede of mercye at theire first coming hither. As for hospitality, that rule doth not bind further than for some present occasion, not for continual residence.
"7. A family is a little common wealth, and a common wealth is a greate family. Now as a family is not bound to entertaine all comers, no not every good man (otherwise than by way of hospitality) no more is a common wealth.
"8. It is a generall received rule, turpius ejicitur quam non admittitur hospes, it is worse to receive a man whom we must cast out againe, than to denye him admittance.
"9. The rule of the Apostle, John 2:10 is, that such as come and bring not the true doctrine with them should not be received to house, and by the same reason not into the common weale.
"10. Seeing it must be granted that there may come such persons (suppose Jesuits, &c.) which by consent of all ought to be rejected, it will follow that this law (being only for notice to be taken of all that come to us, without which we cannot avoyd such as indeed are to be kept out) is no other but just and needfull, and if any should be rejected that ought not to be received, that is not to be imputed to the law, but to those who are entrusted with the execution of it. And herein is to be considered, what the intent of the law is, and by consequence, by what rule they walke, who are betrusted with the keeping of it. The intent of the law is to preserve the wellfare of the body; and for this ende to have none received into any fellowship with it who are likely to disturbe the same, and this intent (I am sure) is lawful and good. Now then, if such to whom the keeping of this law is committed, be persuaded in theire judgments that such a man is likely to disturbe and hinder the publick weale, but some others who are not in the same trust, judge otherwise, yet they are to follow their owne judgments, rather than the judgments of others who are not alike interested: As in tryall of an offender by a jury; the twelve men are satisfied in their consciences, upon the evidence given, that the party deserves death: but there are 20 or 40 standers by, who conceive otherwise, yet the jury bound to condemn to him according to their own consciences, and not to acquit him upon the different opinion of other men, except theire reasons can convince them of the errour of theire consciences, and this is according to the rule of the Apostle, Rom 14:5. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mynde." John Winthrop, "A Defence of an Order of Court made in the Year 1637," from Democracy Liberty and Property (Macmillan, 1942 & 1955), pp. 287-289.

It appears from the above, that Governor Winthrop used Scripture to justify the act of the General Court and left us a glimpse of the heritage we have in Christ. That is, to exercise His Testament in forming our own Good and Lawful Christian jural societies. Be aware however, this is not cultish, for we do not teach the dogma of man's imposed interpretations of Truth. Our Lord then having given Warrant to us also has freely given us the keys of Knowledge to be exercised for His Glory and Majesty. May we be found worthy to perform that task when called upon by those who would prey upon us.

So whenever you call, we want to know "in whose name you called." Our Lord said He alone is the Door, and if you want to separate the un-Godly from your Good and Lawful Christian body, then they must come through Him. There is no other door. So, in like manner, if one comes calling, but does not enter through the Door of our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, "the same is a thief and a robber." And this is the way you use the Sword of the Lord, not of your own fashioning, but of His Fashion. And this is the reason for the question, "In Whose Name did you call?"

Abatement Update

(continued from Issue the Twenty-fourth)

By now most if not all of you have received your new Abatement Updates. Thank you again for your love and prayers, for without them we would have a much harder road; and thank you all for your loving Christian fellowship.

There were a few points which did not make it into the Abatement Updates due to either a lack of space or a lack of speed in getting new information into them from all of the King's Men around the country. This is something which is essential, for Scripture says, "Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend." Pr 27:17. Without you, the work on lawful process is painfully slow, but for the Lord keeping us and you in His hands, we would all perish.

To those who are tired of "ivory tower theories," enjoy your return to Babylon with the secular human 'species' and their brand of mercy. Sam Adams had this to say about you and it is quite appropriate:

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly on you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Sam Adams.

Let me first begin with the section concerning itself with estates of Inheritance, since this is where most, if not all, of the information did not make it into the Update. Most of this concerns itself with exercising ministerial powers and rights. In this section you might add, in the appropriate place, the following maxim, quoting only the Latin, and leaving the rest out:

"Prior tempore, potior jure --First in time is stronger in right." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2154.

A little explanation is in order here because this seems like it would not apply to the Abatement. But on closer examination, you will see why only the Good and Lawful Christian has access to the maxims of Law.

A Good and Lawful Christian bears the Seal of His Sovereign:

"In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of His glory." Eph 1:13-14.
and,
"And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." Eph 4:30.

A Seal speaks the Law of the Sealer and identifies the one Sealed as belonging to the Sovereign of the Seal, thereby separating whatever is marked by the Seal from those without it. What does this have to do with the above? Every thing. You see, the Seal is evidence of Warrant, Power and Right of the Sovereign, in Whose Name you are sent to Execute His Testimony--not your own testimony. The One Who placed the Seal on your heart is the One Whose Law and Testimony you execute, under His Direction, Mandate and Will contained in the Writ you execute. It is the Ministerial Powers and Rights of the Office of Christ which are of unparalleled importance to the Good and Lawful Christian, because these are conveyed and evidenced by the Seal of the Sealer. The Ministerial Rights and Powers which appertain to the Seal originate in and with God, therefore find their being declared in Genesis 1:27, where man is made in the image and likeness of God--there is the Seal. This exceeds the "legal memory of man" and therefore the Ministerial Rights and Powers of the Office of Christ exercised by the Good and Lawful Christian antedate any thing created by the human/natural man/pagan. So that,

"Qui alterius jure utitur, eodem jure uti debet --He who uses the right of another ought to use the same right." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2157.

This then reduces the argument to the Good and Lawful Christian exercising the Ministerial Powers and Rights vested in Him by God through our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ.

Now the question is: "how old are those vested Ministerial Powers and Rights?" They are as old as when Genesis opens up and tells us of the Creation of the Estate by Elohim, because Rights in and of Inheritance date from their Origin in Ancestry. Those Ministerial Rights and Powers exceed the "legal memory of man" and as long as you are in the Garden of Eden exercising those Rights and Powers appertaining to the Office of Christ, you have assurance from God that you have His Authority and Warrant to exercise them.

What about "sovereign citizens?" Do they have the same rights and powers? No. If you are "sovereign" within yourself, then you have no sanction from God, for you deny the only Sovereign, and have not His Testimony and Seal. Because these 'selfs' have not the Testimony of God and His Son, our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, they have no rights in and of Inheritance from the Creator of the Estate in the first place. In other words, they are bastards, in the True sense of the Word, to wit:

"Bastardus nullius est filius, aut filius populi --A bastard is nobody's son, or the son of the people." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957), p. 193.

Further, if one proclaims himself to be a "sovereign citizen" he will not willingly be put under the yoke of the One True Sovereign, and therefore cannot evidence any relationship in Christ which is essential to a "common weal" for only the Christ is Truly Sovereign (see "In Whose Name" Page ten). If "sovereign" in yourself, you don't need any one else's law, just your fickle appetite for self-righteousness.

But you may say, "I live under grace, not under law. That's my Christianity." And truly it is your Christianity, but not the doctrine of the Christ. This is such nonsense, but it must be dealt with here. I would suggest any one reading this article to get a copy of the pamphlet and tape "In Vinculis--Justification and Excuse by and through Resting in Christ alone," for a more complete explanation than what will be offered here. I will only say this: The term "Christ" is an Office, not a name. This is key to being a Good and Lawful Christian--not an antinomian knave.

"A distinguishing feature between an 'office' and an 'agency' is that the former has its origin in the law while the latter originates in contract." Bear River Sand Corp. v. Placer County (1953), 118 C.A.2d 684, 258 P.2d 543.

Ministerial officers are subject to the Law (yoke) which establishes the ministerial office. If you are under grace and not under the Law (yoke) of the Christ, then you are lawless, and have no part in the church established by Christ. You are in the same class as the "sovereign citizen" --condemned without Law. Where did "your christianity" originate--in you or in Law appertaining to the Office of Christ? And what was its cause for being brought into existence by you? If it did not originate in the Law of the Christ, then what relationship do you have to the Christ and our Father? So that without that all important relationship in Law to the Lawgiver, you have no rights or powers either. You have no Inheritance!!! For our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ declared and our Father confirmed that,

"I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in Me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without Me ye can do nothing [*or have any Inheritance in and through Me]." John 15:5. [Emphasis and insertion added.]

You see, there are many myths out there in "patriotland" where one never needs to confront his secular assumptions or the assumptions of others. But in Christ, everything is put under the Light of His Word, and is shown for what it really contains.

Fiction, Fabrication, Falsehood

"FICTION is opposed to what is real; FABRICATION and FALSEHOOD to what is true. Fiction relates what may be, though not what is: fabrication and falsehood what is not as what is, and vice versa. Fiction serves for amusement and instruction: fabrication and falsehood serve to mislead and deceive. Fiction and fabrication both require invention: falsehood consists of simple contradiction.

In an extended sense of the word fiction, it approaches still nearer to the sense of fabricate, when said of the fictions of the ancients, which were delivered as truth, although admitted now to be false: the motive of the narrator is what here constitutes the difference; namely, that in the former case he believes what he relates to be true, in the latter he knows it to be false. The heathen mythology consists principally of the fictions of the poets: newspapers abound in fabrication.

As epithets, fictitious and false are very closely allied; for what is fictitious is false, though all that is false is not fictitious: the fictitious is that which has been feigned, or falsely made by some one; the false is simply that which is false by the nature of the thing.." Crabb's English Synonymes (1890), pages 431-432.

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

An old gentleman in the county of Herts, having lost his coachman by death, who had served him many years, advertised for a successor. The first who applied, giving a satisfactory account of his character and capacity for such a place, was asked how near he could drive to the edge of a wood, where a sloping bank presented danger. He replied, "to an inch." The old gentleman ordered him to be supplied with suitable refreshment, and to leave his address, adding, that if he wished for his services, he should hear from him in a day or two. Shortly afterward, a second applied, who underwent the same examination as the former, and replied to the last question, that he could drive, "to half an inch," and had often done it; he also received the same dismission with the same civilities as the former man. Soon afterward, a third applied, and on being asked the same question, namely, how near he could drive to the edge of a sharp declivity, in case of necessity, coolly replied, "Really, I do not know, sir, having never tried: for it has always been my maxim to get as far as possible from such danger, and I have had my reward in my safety, and that of my employers."

The wise Coachman

With this reply, the old gentleman expressed his entire satisfaction, and informed the man if he could procure a proper recommendation, wages should not part them, adding, "I am grown old and timid, and want a coachman on whose prudence and care I can rely, as well as his skill."

Would it not be well if those who are engaged in commercial pursuits, would avoid as carefully as this prudent coachman did, the edge of the precipice? In this case, balmy sleep would oftener light on the eyelids of persons so employed, and the shipwreck of fortune would not so often occur. But let the professor of godliness especially remember this true and useful story. A faithful pastor being asked how far a person might go in sin, and yet be saved, replied, "It is a dangerous experiment to try." Ah! do not too many study to find out how little grace they may have, and yet go to heaven? Instead of this, let us all treasure up in our hearts the words of Christ, "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled." O, let us keep as far as possible from sin and hell, and "cleave to the Lord with full purpose of heart."

According to the USPS 1997 DMM Manual, at A010, 1.2(d), "Zip Codes may be omitted from pieces mailed by the general public at the single-piece rates for First-Class Mail and Standard Mail and from pieces bearing a simplified address."

The Zip Code

Dog Latin

is the bastardized or debased Latin formerly used in law and legal documents, from which we have for the most part escaped. Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (1894), quotes the following jocular example: "As the law classically expresses it, a kitchen is 'camera necessaria pro usus cookare; cum sauce-pannis, stewpannis, scullero, dressero, coalholo, stovis, smoak-jacko; pro roastandum, boilandum, fryandum, et plum-pudding-mixandum.'"

Lawyers...and other reptiles

"They have no lawyers among them for they consider them as a sort of people whose profession it is to disguise matters." --Sir Thomas Moore, 1516

He saw a lawyer killing a viper,

On a dunghill hard by his own stable;

And the Devil smiled, for it put him in mind,

Of Cain and Abel.

--Samuel Taylor Coleridge

When an elderly New York lawyer, after a typically long life of sin, was told he had only days to live, he rushed home and began to frantically leaf through the Bible, looking for loopholes.

It was so cold that a lawyer had his hands in his own pockets.

How Cold Was It?

general delivery

According to Postal Bulletin #21877 issued 9-29-94, "The 30-day limit in DMM 930.1.4 refers to how long mail is usually held in the General Delivery section, not to how long a person can receive general delivery service."

In addition, those with no fixed address, i.e., transients and homeless, "may receive indefinite general delivery service."

If you don't have a copy of this postal bulletin, call us and we'll FAX or send you one.

Not!

"Human being was long held objectionable by a few purists, but is so pervasive today even in formal writing that it should be accepted as standard." A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage (1987) by Brian A. Garner, page 271.

Issue the Twenty-sixth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Judge quotes Scripture in Molestation Case...

Timeline of Tyranny, Part One...

Autopsy Report Reveals Wonder Drug 'Antinomy' killed Christian America, Part One...

The Modern Gospel Versions, Part One...

Fictions of Law, Part Two...

Bits and Pieces...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Judge quotes Scripture in Molestation Case

from the several King's Men in Nebraska

Editor's Note: The following has been submitted by the several King's Men in The Nebraska Jural Society. The four sections to this story, in order of its presentation are; first, The First House of Delegate's Formal Statement; second, The newspaper article from The Bellvue Leader concerning the Case; third, The First House of Delegate's Public Resolution; fourth, Commentary of the several King's Men in California.

The Nebraska Jural Society

First House of Delegates, pro tempore

The sixth day of the second month in the Year of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, nineteen hundred ninety-eight

To whom it may concern:

A resolution by the Nebraska Jural Society, First House of Delegates, pro tempore, was passed by a majority of the delegates assembled, at the bi-monthly meeting on the evening of the fifth day of the second month, in the Year of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, nineteen hundred ninety-eight.

Prompting the resolution was the resent newspaper story in the Bellevue Leader regarding the sentencing of a man who was convicted of engaging in prohibited acts with a minor man-child. The Bible recognizes only two penalties for acts offensive to God: Restitution or death. Unfortunately, in this age of church feminization brought on by the influence of humanistic heresy, men who are willing to make decisions according to the bedrock of western civilization are few and far between.

It is entirely ludicrous for anyone to suggest that District Judge George Thompson acted improperly in quoting Holy Scripture during a sentencing hearing. The Law of God is not private law, but public Law. The Law speaks to offences that affect the collective body and soul of society. There are no "individuals" in society. All are part of the whole, and all suffer when the Law is trivialized, ridiculed, and worst of all, replaced with an inevitably inferior invention of man's "reason."

By approval of the members of the Nebraska Jural Society, First House of Delegates, pro tempore.

---------------v---------------

Bellevue Leader

February 4, 1998 Bellevue, Nebraska

Judge accused of bias

Cited Scripture when jailing gay man for molesting child

By JOE DEJKA
Leader senior writer

A Sarpy County judge has been accused of misconduct for quoting the Bible when sentencing a gay man.

District Court Judge George Thompson quoted Scripture condemning homosexuality when he sentenced Aaron Pattno for sexually assaulting a teen-age boy.

Pattno's Omaha defense attorney, Marc Delman, said the judge violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and abused his discretion.

Delman wants the Nebraska Court of Appeals to throw out his client's prison sentence.

In a brief filed this month with the court, Delman claims Thompson showed bias against his client when he read a Bible passage that refers to "men committing shameless acts with men."

Delman said Thompson should have removed himself from the case because of his strong feelings.

Delman asked the court to overturn Pattno's sentence of 20 months to five years in the Nebraska Department of Corrections. He said his client deserves probation, instead.

The maximum sentence for the crime is five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. There is no minimum sentence.

Thompson said Monday he could not comment on the case while it was on appeal.

The Nebraska Attorney General's office will represent the state before the appeals court.

Contacted by a reporter, Delman declined to elaborate on the information in his brief.

In the brief, he said homosexuality may be abhorrent to orthodox Christians, but it is not "inherently evil."

"At the very least, Judge Thompson's public criticism of (Pattno's) sexual orientation compromised the fairness of (his) sentencing," he said.

According to the brief, Pattno was 25 years old last spring when he developed a romantic relationship with a 13-year-old boy.

During an overnight visit between the two, Pattno and the boy kissed, and there was sexual contact between them.

Pattno pleaded guilty Aug. 12, 1997 to sexual assault of a child by contact.

Delman alleges that a court-ordered pre-sentence investigation of his client recommended neither probation nor incarceration.

He said that in the courtroom before he was sentenced, Pattno expressed regret and remorse for the "trouble and heartache" he caused for the victim and his family.

He said Pattno had no criminal record other than minor traffic violations. He said he was employed and had some college education.

Before Thompson pronounced sentence, he said, the judge read the following passage, Romans 1:26-27:

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

Delman said such Scripture has no place in the courtroom.

"Many would likely applaud Judge Thompson for his profession of faith and its incorporation into a sentencing proceeding, but just as many would find it wholly inappropriate to proselytize a defendant coming before the bar for the imposition of punishment," he said.

Delman said it is difficult to tell how much Thompson's personal views affected the severity of the sentence.

"Did Judge Thompson reject probation to reflect the true seriousness of the offense...or because probation would trivialize what the judge considers an unspeakable heresy against God?" Delman wrote.

The Code of Judicial Conduct requires that judges refrain from expressing their personal religious views inside the courtroom, he said.

Judges must, according to the code, remain impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, he said.

The code asks that judges remove themselves from cases in which they have a bias or prejudice, he said.w

---------------V---------------

The Nebraska Jural Society

First House of Delegates, pro tempore

Public Resolution

Know all Men by these presents: The people of the Nebraska Jural Society, First House of Delegates, pro tempore, grateful to Almighty God for their Liberty, hereby inform the World of the following resolution, in Lawful assembly passed;

Whereas: The cause of the Church is a public cause and private interpretation is irrelevant,

Whereas: History bears repeated examples of civilizations destroyed when their foundational presuppositions are attacked and consequently weakened,

Whereas: The law of the land and the Law of God are one in the same,

Whereas: It is the duty of public officials and magistrates to preserve the King's peace,

Whereas: The Ten Commandments, the ordinances, and statutes of God revealed throughout Scripture exceed the legal memory of Man, are therefore ancient standing Law and inherently indisputable,

Therefore, be it resolved, that the members of the Nebraska Jural Society, First House of Delegates, pro tempore, commend the Honorable George Thompson, Judge of the District Court for the Second Judicial District of Nebraska, for his faith in, reliance upon, and execution of the Testament of Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour, Jesus the Christ.

In witness whereof, We hereunto set Our hands this fifth day of the second month in the Year of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, Nineteen hundred ninety-eight, in the two hundred and twenty-second year of the Independence of America.

The Timeline of Tyranny:

The Public School System

Sept: Washington's "Farewell Address" is read before Congress. It says: "Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Compiled by John Quade

1796

1836

McGuffey Readers are printed, by William H. McGuffey using a phonics approach to reading, based on the work of Noah Webster, the Readers emphasize Biblical principle. In the next 75 years, 122 million copies will be sold.

Horace Mann publishes essays on education in Massachusetts to promote standard curricula. This effects Common Schools, controlled by parents since some control must pass to States to administer standards. Mann's ideas are the modern way. By Lincoln's War, Common Schools are replaced by Public Schools.

1863

A. Lincoln creates the Office of the Commissioner of Education as a War measure. The basis is laid for Federal control of schools, colleges and universities.

1864

John Swett, California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, says: "The vulgar impression that parents have a legal right to dictate to teachers is entirely erroneous... The only persons who have a legal right to give orders to the teacher are his employers, namely the committee in some states and in others the directors or trustees... If his conduct is approved of by his employers, the parents have no remedy against him or them."

This idea is propagated and accepted in most States, except in the South.

1886

'Poison Drops in the Federal Senate: The School Question from a Parental and Non-Sectarian Standpoint," by Zachary Montgomery (candidate, U.S.Attorney-General) is printed. In Massachusetts, the 1860 census shows that the state has 1 native white criminal to every 649 people. In Virginia, which left the education of children to the parents, there is 1 such criminal in 6,566 inhabitants. Suicides in 6 northeastern states where States control education were 1 in 13,285. In mid-Atlantic and southern states the suicide rate is 1 in every 56,584 people. Why?

Montgomery says - first, the loss of parental authority and home influence on children in State schools; and second, the neglect of 'moral and religious education and training,' are the reasons. Montgomery's work gets support from such as John LeConte (President, California State Univ.) and George Washington's grand-nephew.

1905

In a loft over a restaurant in New York City, Sinclair Lewis, Upton Sinclair and others form the Intercollegiate Socialist Society to "foster a more enlightened interest in the principles of Socialism among the college students of America."

The group's efforts are directed primarily at teacher's colleges with special emphasis on Columbia University Teachers College, and Chicago University, both very influential schools for training teachers.

1917

The Intercollegiate Socialist Society is exposed as being riddled with Socialism and Communism and is broken up.

It is reformed as the "League for Industrial Democracy," with the same goals. Many influential and wealthy 'educators' join this group. It is quite fashionable.

1918

"The Science of Power," by Benjamin Kidd is printed. He says: "The main cause of those deep dividing differences which separate peoples and nationalities and classes from each other and which prevent or stultify collective effort in all its most powerful forms...could all be swept away if civilization put before itself the will to impose on the young the ideal of subordination to the common aims of organized humanity...it can only be imposed in all its strength through the young. So to impose it has become the chief end of education in the future. Oh, you blind leaders who seek to convert the world by labored disputations! Step out of the way or the world must fling you aside. Give us the Young. Give us the Young and we will create a new mind and new earth in a single generation." Kidd cites Masonic leader Giuseppe Mazzini (1805-1872). "Your task is to form the universal family... Education, this is the great word that sums up our whole doctrine." (From "On the Duties of Man.") Kidd cites Mazzini's again that "education is addressed through emotion to the moral faculties in the young and instruction to the intellectual (faculties)," and Kidd claims, "Power centers in emotion."

Education declines among high school graduates are exposed in "Brain-washing in High Schools," by Prof. E. Merrill Root (Earlham College). He cites Maj. William E. Mayer, Army psychiatrist, in U. S. News & World Report, who describes successful brainwashing (not by torture) of one-third of American P-O-W's under North Korean Communists, and blames formal educators that did not provide the historical knowledge of our country that could have been used to counter Communist brainwashing. When U. S. News asks "Weren't they taught this (knowledge of the American system) in school?" Major says, "Many of them said they weren't. Many of them said they didn't know." Root relates similar conclusions reached by the D.O.D. Advisory Commission on Prisoners of War in a report of July 29, 1955 by Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Arthur Radford. A key point made by Prof. Root is, "Politically speaking, our government is not a 'democracy' but a constitutional republic, with checks and balances to curb the public state and to enhance the individual."

1963

March/April: In the A.V. Communication Review, Monograph No. 2 of the Technological Development Project of the NEA. The project is under contract # SAE-9073 with the U. S. Office of Education of HEW, as authorized under Title VII, Part B, of the National Defense Education Act of 1958, one finds: "Another area of potential development in computer applications is the attitude changing machine. Dr. Bertram Raven (Psychology Dept., U.C.L.A.) is building a computer-based device to change attitudes. It works on the principle that student attitudes can be changed effectively by using the Socratic method of asking an appropriate series of leading questions logically designed to right the balance between appropriate attitudes and those deemed less acceptable."

1966

May 9: A special advisory committee to the California State Board of Education concludes that "Sensitivity training is being used by those who are in fact aligned with revolutionary groups acting contrary to public policy; that is, they intend to use the schools to destroy American culture and traditions." Prof. Harden Jones of Berkeley, made an in-depth study of sensitivity training in Nazi "Strength Through Joy" movements in Hitler's Germany.

"Values and Teaching: Working With Values in the Classroom," by Louis Raths, Merrill Harmin, and Sidney Simon is printed. They say: "As the family changed, and as new influences came into the family, the impact of the church began to wane .. There was also a weakening of the authority of parents with no substitute authority to fill the vacuum beyond the temporal standards of the boys and girls themselves ... there is the idea that the child is to be really free to choose ... Moralizing has not worked in the past; do not be afraid to abandon it as a classroom practice ... We are primarily concerned with the process that a person uses to get at a value, not with what value he chooses at any one time and place - we are concerned with the process of valuing and not particularly with the product."

1971

The Federal Bar Journal prints an article by attorneys Charles Sheerer and Ronald Roston, who comment on personality tests in schools: "...any personality test constitutes an invasion of privacy, as the person tested rarely understands the implications of all the questions ... or the significance of the responses. The tests may not only reveal the thoughts and feelings which the student desires to withhold from others but those he is trying to keep from his own consciousness."

The tree of State education begins to bear bitter fruit as it become more and more obvious to everyone that the public school system is a corrupt failure.

This, and the Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, jars the Christian community and they begin to form their own, 'private schools,' usually under a 501(c)3 corporate church.

1975

October 24: Henry Steele Commager writes a second Declaration of lnterdependence, that includes the words: "Two centuries ago our forefathers brought forth anew nation; now we must join with others to bring forth a new world order... Narrow notions of national sovereignty must not be permitted to curtail that obligation... We affirm that a world without law is a world without order, and we call upon all nations to strengthen and to sustain the United Nations and its specialized agencies, and other institutions of world order, and to broaden the jurisdiction of the World Court, that these may preside over a reign of law that will not only end wars but end as well that mindless violence which terrorizes our society even in times of peace."

This is written for the World Affairs Council, but, Cong. John Ashbrook says the Council "has even joined with the Philadelphia school system to develop model fifth and sixth-grade school programs promoting the Declaration of Interdependence. Children are even asked to pledge themselves to the declaration's concepts, thus repudiating their own patriotic heritage, and to lobby for signatures from their friends and relatives for the Declaration of Interdependence. "

Nationally syndicated columnist James J. Kilpatrick in the February 7, 1976 Washington Star calls the Declaration of Interdependence "a genuinely subversive document." Cong. Marjorie Holt refuses to sign the document, saying: "It calls for the surrender of our national sovereignty to international organizations." But, it will be signed by 131 members of Congress, including Christopher Dodd, Robert Packwood, Claiborne Pell, Paul Simon, Pat Schroeder, Ron Dellums, and Les Aspin. On July 8, 1977, U. S. Senator Jesse Helms will write a letter in which he will state:

"It really is a shocking thing to see how many people who have sworn to uphold the Constitution would go ahead and endorse such a treasonable document." Senator Helms will refer to the signers as endorsing a treasonable document, and Les Aspin (a signer) will became Bill Clinton's Secretary of Defense (1993), who is supposed to be in charge of defending the nation.

More reports and national studies indicate the continued decline of public school students in the quality of education and their ability to function in the work-day world.

1977

August 1: The Washington Post prints Lawrence Feinberg's "Competency Tests Set in 26 Schools," in which he reports that a new "competency based curriculum" to be used in every school in Washington, DC, "is based on the work in behavioral psychology of Harvard University's B. F. Skinner, who developed teaching machines and even trained pigeons in World War II to pilot and detonate bombs and torpedoes." Washington, D.C., Associate School Superintendent James Guines tells Feinberg, "If you can train a pigeon to fly up there and press a button and set off a bomb, why can't you teach human beings to behave in effective and rational ways? We know we can modify human behavior. We're not afraid of that. This is the biggest thing that's happening in education today."

1985

January 3: 'The national television program "20/20" on the ABC network devotes much time to an alleged example of how "brainwashing" preschoolers could have been used to destroy a child's sense of family values.

May 12: The Pulitzer Publishing Company's St. Louis Post-Dispatch prints "Globalism Tramples on American Values" by D. L. Cuddy, in which one reads: "A recent New York Times Magazine article noted that the University of Denver Center for Teaching International Relations World Citizen Curriculum, hundreds of copies of which have been sold to schools and teachers nationwide, 'recommends out-of-body experience as a way of visualizing a world without national boundaries.'" (Greg Cunningham in the mid-1980s wrote, for the Denver Regional Office of the U. S. Department of Education, a paper critical of CTIR's global education program.) The article in the Post-Dispatch continues: "Starting tomorrow in St. Louis, an American Forum on Education and International Competence will be held, emphasizing the positioning of global education for the 1990s. The forum will have workshops on such topics as 'Developing Strategies for lnternationalizing State Curriculum' and 'Political/Religious Challenges to Global Education.' In "Global Education: State of the Art," published by the federally funded Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, one reads that, "global education incorporates the view that black and white answers probably never really existed but the time is long past when even that myth can endure. Competent world citizens must act in the large zone of grays where absolutes are absent... Following the motto of 'thinking globally, acting locally,' global educators today have made a concerted effort to have their views contained in every subject in every school. According to a report by the Study Commission on Global Education, all school courses should be 'infused with a global perspective.' Those Americans who do not want their local school boards internationalized and who want to maintain a sovereign United States based upon Judeo-Christian moral principles should resist any attempt to incorporate this nation into a New Age, New World Order."

"Killers of Children: A Psychoanalytic Look at Sex Education," by Dr. Melvin Anchell is printed, in which he explains psychological development and shows why sex education conflicts with (e.g., invades the young child's latency period, etc.) and distorts natural psychology. Dr. Anchell elsewhere criticizes sensitivity training as clinical "desensitization."

The NEA adopts Resolution C-34 stating: "The National Education Association believes that home-school programs cannot provide the child with a comprehensive education experience. The Association believes that, if parental preference home-school study occurs, students enrolled must meet all State requirements. Instruction should be by persons who are licensed by the appropriate state education licensure agency, and a curriculum approved by the state department of education should be used."

The National Center on Education and the Economy is formed to carry on policy development work begun by the Carnegie Forum on Education and The Economy. The Forum releases its report, "A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century," (1986). It recommends radical restructuring of the organization and management of America's schools. The Center's first product is, "To Secure Our Future: The Federal Role in Education," is released in 1989 and plays an important role in framing the issues and shaping agreements made at the Education Summit at the University of Virginia (Charlottesville) in the Fall of 1989.

August: The ASCD Update informs that "Tactics for Thinking, a framework for teaching thinking developed at the Mid-continent Regional Educational Lab. (McRel) and published by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development in 1986, becomes the target of critics who argue that it 'brainwashes' children and advances a 'New Age' agenda of one world government.' ASCD director, Gordon Cawelti, calls for a World Core Curriculum. At an international meeting in Holland (1985) 20,000 teachers are trained in Tactics for Thinking. Robert Marzano, Director of Research at McRel develops Tactics for Thinking on similar work by Estonian "change agent" Hilda Taba.

PL 100-297 amends ESEA of 1965 and lays the foundation for the national plan for restructuring all the nation's schools for Outcome-Based Education. This 'reform' plan includes partnerships, parent training, early childhood education, school based/linked clinics, day care, assistance to at-risk students and voluntarism and effective schools. It provides funds for improving and reforms of schools and teaching.

December: 1st lnt. Cong. on Self-Esteem and Sex Ed. for Educators, Mental Health and Rehabilitation Professionals is held in Kona, Hawaii. Featured speakers are Sol Gordon, John Vasconcellos, and Sylvia Hacker among others.

1989

September: Pres. Bush and 50 State Governors meet in Charlottesville, Virginia, and agree to establish National Education Goals. July, 1990 the National Education Goals panel is formed. Gov. Bill Clinton heads the initial work leading to 6 National Education Goals, and in 1991 the panel chairman, Colorado Governor Roy Romer, releases the first report. Among the 6 goals will be that "by the year 2000, all children in America will start school ready to learn." The only way for this to happen is by massive government intervention in preschool family life. One goal indicates that "by the year 2000, every adult American will be literate." One can imagine tactics that will have to be used so that every illiterate senior citizen will be literate.

Note: Gov. Bill Clinton is also, at this time, a member of "The Council on State Governments."

The decline in the quality of education in the public schools has now at epidemic proportions. A national 'outrage' expressed by politicians and educators cries for more money.

The Christian School movement has grown to the point where nearly 1 in 4 children are in a Christian school.

1989

November: Shirley McCune (Mid-continent Regional Educational Labora-tory (McREL) stresses that "Radical change is now; you cannot escape it .... Strategies and behaviors must be changed because the dawning of this new age is far more significant than the transformation of the national and world economics taking place ...

The Williamsburg Charter Foundation's curriculum on religious liberty is tested in 5 states. It characterizes the peace and women's movements as "the most glorious accomplishments" in U. S. history. It has a variant of the notorious "lifeboat" game, as 4 of 5 students are 'forced to evacuate" a descending balloon gondola because they lack certain information. An invasion of privacy occurs as students are asked what changes there have been in their parents' and families' beliefs.

The group will change its name to First Liberty Institute. Its head, Charles Haynes, says, on Christians' concerns about public schools: "I understand their frustrations -they feel they're losing their institutions. However, public education will not go backward. We are a pluralistic society.'(USA TODAY, November 28, 1989)

1990

June: educators from 7 nations gather in Chicago to explore common visions for holistic education," which results in the formation of GATE (Global Alliance for Transforming Education), with Dr. Phil Gang as Executive Director and Dorothy Maver on the Steering Committee. In August of '91, GATE prints "Education 2000: A Holistic Perspective," that emphasizes multiple intelligences and experiential learning, and calls for standard tests to be replaced by personalized assessments, saying "We call for a thorough re-thinking of grading, assessment, and standardized examinations .... We suggest that 'objective' scores do not truly serve the learning or optimal development of students." They call for "Educating for Participatory Democracy ... for Global Citizenship ... for Earth Literacy ... and Spirituality and Education." GATE works with "progressive educators, United Nations organizations, teacher educators and academics, government leaders, citizen groups for social change, the media and others."

At the same address as GATE is The Institute for Educational Studies (TIES) with Dr. Phil Gang (whose book Our Planet, Our Home has been hailed by Robert Muller), founding director and creator of "Teaching, Learning and Communicating in a Global Society: A Leadership Training for Transforming Education, " presented by TIES.

In this program, TIES seeks to "empower teachers ... as change agents in a global society.... What is needed is a shift in consciousness commensurate with the shift to a global society ... emphasize global interdependence .... Explore a major shift in belief systems with regard to our children and our future."

Next month, we will explore how the opposition have expanded their subversion of the schools in the 1990's.

Autopsy Report Reveals Wonder Drug Antinomy

killed Christian America

Yes, that new wonder drug so often taken for granted by today's addicted Christian has killed off the America that his forebears once knew as a great country in and of Christendom. It has been determined by the Scripture that antinomianism is not a doctrine appertaining to the High and Sacred Office of the Christ, and was never taught by our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ. It appeared sometime after His Ministry commenced.

If you are concerned about "ivory tower theories" then, please by all means available at your disposal, return to the entertainment section of your local daily drivel.

For the remainder, I am going to be talking about "antinomianism" and its poisonous political consequences. I will also be touching on "hermeneutics," a term bandied about in legal circles, but not understood by Christians as having a Christian source. I am not here to criticize any one for their particular beliefs, but I am here to call attention to the inconsistency of those beliefs. These inconsistencies create confusion which leads to impotence in and of His church and state, apathy, and finally death. And in this progression the tools necessary to stop it, i.e. a working knowledge of the Law, are lacking or are not even present.

Let us first get definitions out of the way, for we have to have some common ground upon which to proceed in this discourse. Contrary to popular belief, Christianity is a political statement of God's Will and Intention for man. And so do not be surprised to find religious terms in law dictionaries.

"ANTINOMIANISM. n. -s: the theological doctrine that by faith and God's gift of grace through the gospel a Christian is freed not only from the Old Testament law of Moses and all forms of legalism but also from all law including the generally accepted standards of morality prevailing in any given culture." Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (1981), vol. I, p. 95.

If we examine further the use of the word "antinomy" it means the following:

"ANTINOMY. A term used in the civil law to signify the real or apparent contradiction between two laws or two decisions. Merl. Report. h. t. Vide Conflict of Laws." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1859), p. 106.
"ANTINOMY. In Roman Law. A real or apparent contradiction or inconsistency in the laws. Merlin, Report.
"It is sometimes used as an English word, and spelled Antimony." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 205.

Note the use of the word "apparent" in both of the definitions above. "Prima facie" is the Law word meaning the same thing, "on its face" sans any investigation behind the facade or face. Thus a device or artifice is implied, but not necessarily any deception. You are merely put on notice, and further investigation is required of you. Not only is this term a legal term, but it is also a religious term, coined by Luther. Other dictionaries define it to be:

"ANTINOMY. n. [L. antinomia, a contradiction between laws, from Gr. antinomia; anti-, against, and nomia, from nomos, law.] 1. Antagonism between laws; the opposition of one rule, principle, or law to another. 2. The unavoidable contradiction to pure reasoning which human limitations introduce, as formulated by Kant; paradoxical conclusion. 3. A contradiction or inconsistency between two apparently reasonable principles or laws." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged (1969), p. 81.

Things prima facie appearing to be contradictory are not necessarily so. They must be interpreted in light of other passages of Scripture or legislation concerned with the same subject-matter. This leads us to the definition of "hermeneutics":

"HERMENEUTICS. (Greek, to interpret). The art and science, or body of rules, of truthful interpretation. It has been used chiefly by theologians; but Zacharie, in "An Essay on General Legal Hermeneutics" (Versuch elner allg. Hermeneitik des Rechts), and Dr. Lieber, in his work on Legal and Political Hermeneutics, also make use of it. See INTERPRETATION; CONSTRUCTION." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 205. [Emphasis added.]

Note carefully the Christian source for this science. This Christian science is what is used to interpret all codes, rules, and regulations. And those secular judges like to say they are not religious? They would have to be religious to interpret the codes they enforce! It is that simple. Even idolatry itself is a religion. (So the next time you call, don't ask, "Do you think they know this?" The answer is most obvious to the casual observer.) The key word in the above definition is the word "truthful." We must then come to a definition of "Truth" so that we can be full of the Truth, or Truthful in our interpretation of Scripture:

"TRUTH. There are three conceptions as to what constitutes 'truth': Agreement of thought [*the mind of Christ] and reality [*God's Word revealed in Christ, and in His creation both physical and spiritual]; eventual verification [*His Word does not return void but accomplishes His purpose]; and consistency of thought with itself [*not self-contradictory]. Memphis Telephone Co. v. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co., C.C.A.Tenn., 231 F. 835, 842." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 1685. [Christ Jesus manifests and manifested all three requirements.] From Elwell:
"TRUTH. Fundamental or spiritual reality. The first Christian theologian to attempt any systematic exposition of the concept of truth was Augustine. His immediate aim was to refute skepticism. If man's mind is incapable of grasping truth, particularly if man is incapable of grasping the truth about God, then morality and theology are impossible. Augustine distinguished four senses of the term 'truth.' First, truth is the affirmation of what is, e.g., three times three is nine, and David was king of Israel. Second, every reality (particularly the immutable, supersensible ideas) can be considered as an affirmation of itself: it is true when it merits the name it claims. In this sense beauty and wisdom are truth. Third, the Word of God, Jesus Christ, is the Truth because he expresses the Father. And fourth, in the realm of sensible objects, such as plants and animals, there is a resemblance, but only a resemblance, to the primary realities of point two above. Strictly speaking, a visible tree is not a true tree. But as the resemblance is real, even sensible objects have a degree of truth.
"Many contemporary students of the Bible, fearing that Augustine or others are too deeply influenced by Greek philosophy, attempt to specify the several senses in which truth is used in the Scripture. Hoskyns and Davey, The Riddle of the NT, after quoting Eph. 4:20-24, seek for a conception of truth that will have 'not an intellectual but a moral and spiritual effect upon them.' The common conception of truth as 'a fact' or 'what is real,' so they assert, 'has no moral or spiritual significance.' The Hebrew notion of truth, with its close relation to God, is considered un-Greek. So also Gerhard Kittel distinguishes, more cautiously perhaps, between Hebrew and Greek usage, citing several passages in the Platonic dialogues.
"One should, however, bear in mind that the technical concepts of the philosophers are hardly ever used by the majority of the population, whether in ancient Greece or modern America. The Bible, too, is written in colloquial language, and the senses in which it uses the term truth are not so different from colloquial usage anywhere.
"One should also bear in mind that moral and spiritual truth is as much truth as mathematical, scientific, and historical truth. It is all equally 'intellectual.' Nonintellectual truth is unthinkable. It is not true that the common conception of truth as a fact or what is real 'has no moral or spiritual significance.' We need only to recall that God gave the Ten Commandments.
"Furthermore, the Greek philosophers did not divorce truth from moral and spiritual values. Plato went so far as to teach, to the consternation of many readers, that a knowledge of the truth automatically guarantees a moral life. Both Pythagoreanism and Neoplatonism were systems of salvation; and even the Stoics and Epicureans made ethics the culmination of philosophy.
"The differences between the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek philosophies are rather to be sought in the nature and the method of the salvation proclaimed, in the concepts of sin, of redemption, and the specific norms of morality; and not in the usage of the word "truth." The relation between God and truth in the Scriptures is indisputably quite different from anything found in Greek philosophy, mainly because the concept of God is so different. It is in such theological content, not in philological usage, that the important distinctions are to be found.
"The usage of the words in the Scripture supports this conclusion. Plain, ordinary, factual truth is the point of Gen. 42:16, 'Ye shall be kept in prison, that your words may be proved, whether there be any truth in you' (Cf. Deut. 13:14; 17:4; 22:20; Prov. 12:19; Jer. 9:3). Esth. 9:30 concerns legally certified information, and Josh. 2:12 points to a private oath.
"It is not a different meaning but precisely the same meaning when the veracity of divine revelation is asserted. God tells the truth; he tells what is so; his assertions are correct. Cf. Pss. 19:9; 119:160; Dan. 8:26; 10:1, 21.
"For the NT Kittel lists six different meanings of the word 'truth,' but adds that 'in many individual cases the distinction is not certain.' One of the six meanings is 'that which has existence or duration.' It is true that truth exists or endures, but it is not in this sense that Gal. 2:5, 14 and Eph. 4:21 define truth.
"Similarly one can rely on the truth without defining truth as 'that on which man can rely.' Rom. 15:8 is not thus to be pressed; nor with the connotation of 'sincerity' can II Cor. 7:14; 11:10; and Phil. 1:18 be used for this purpose.
"Rather, all these usages are derivative from the basic meaning of 'the actual fact' or 'the truth of an assertion.' Cf. Mark 12:14, 32; Luke 4:25; Acts 26:25; Rom. 1:18, 25. It is not another and different meaning, in the NT as in the OT, when it is applied to correct doctrine or right belief. Cf. II Cor. 4:2; 6:7; 13:8; I Tim. 2:4; II Tim. 3:7.
"Like other words, truth too can be used figuratively, by metonymy, in which the effect is substituted for the cause. Thus when Christ says, 'I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life,' the word 'truth' is just as figurative as the word 'life.' As Christ is the cause of life, so is He the cause of truth. That water freezes and that a sinner may be justified by faith are true because Christ creatively said, Let it be so. G. H. CLARK. Bibliography. Augustine, Contra Academicos; N. de Malebranche, Recherche de la Verite; J. Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding; I. Kant, Kritik der reinen Vernunft; B. Blanshard, The Nature of Thought." Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary.

These are the requirements for interpretation, for God's Word says:

"Thy word is true from the beginning [*Genesis 1:1]: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalm 119:160.

Therefore His Word is consistent, without error and is the only Truth and Reality for the Good and Lawful Christian.

It is through the Lawful use of hermeneutics which marks the difference between a "christian" and a Good and Lawful Christian, as seen in the history of "antinomianism" itself, from Elwell:

"ANTINOMIANISM. The word comes from the Greek anti (against) and nomos (law), and refers to the doctrine that it is not necessary for Christians to preach and/or obey the moral law of the OT. There have been several different justifications for this view down through the centuries. Some have taught that once persons are justified by faith in Christ, they no longer have any obligation toward the moral law because Jesus has freed them from it. A variant of this first position is that since Christ has raised believers above the positive precepts of the law, they need to be obedient only to the immediate guidance of the Holy Spirit, who will keep them from sin. A second view has been that since the law came from the Demiurge (as in Gnosticism) and not from the true, loving Father, it was a Christian's duty to disobey it. Third, others have said that since sin is inevitable anyway, there is no need to resist it. An extension of this view is the contention of some that since God, in his eternal decree, willed sin, it would be presumptuous to resist it. Finally, still others have opposed the preaching of the law on the grounds that it is unnecessary and, indeed, contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ.
"It was the first of these views that the apostle Paul had to address in various letters to Christian churches in the first century. For example, there were those in the Corinth church who taught that once people were justified by faith, they could engage in immorality since there was no longer any obligation to obey the moral law (I Cor. 5-6). Paul also had to correct others who obviously had drawn wrong conclusions from his teachings on justification and grace (e.g., Rom. 3:8, 31). Paul himself agonized over his own inability to meet the law's demands, but also exalted it as holy, spiritual, and good (Rom. 7). Elsewhere he taught that the law was the schoolmaster who brings sinners to a knowledge of their sin and therefore to Christ (Gal. 3:24). He concluded that the proper relationship was that of the stipulated works of the law flowing from the experience of saving grace rather than vice versa (Rom. 6-8).
"Perhaps the most extreme form of antinomianism in early Christianity found expression in the Adamite sect in North Africa. The Adamites flourished in the second and third centuries, called their church 'Paradise,' condemned marriage because Adam had not observed it, and worshiped in the nude.
"Many Gnostics in the first centuries of the Christian era held the second of these variations of antinomianism, that the Demiurage, not the true God, gave the moral law; therefore it should not be kept. Some forms of antinomian Gnosticism survived well into the Middle Ages. Moreover, various medieval heretical groups preached Corinthian- style freedom from the law, some going so far as to claim that even prostitution was not sinful for the spiritual person.
"The two most famous antinomian controversies in Christian history occurred in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and involved Martin Luther and Anne Hutchinson, respectively. In fact, it was Luther who actually coined the word "antinomianism" in his theological struggle with his former student, Johann Agricola. In the early days of the Reformation, Luther had taught that, after NT times, the moral law had only the negative value of preparing sinners for grace by making them aware of their sin. Agricola denied even this function of the law, believing that repentance should be induced only through the preaching of the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Christ.
"This first major theological controversy in Protestant history lasted intermittently from 1537 to 1540. During this time Luther began to stress the role of the law in Christian life and to preach that it was needed to discipline Christians. He also wrote an important theological treatise to refute antinomianism once and for all: Against the Antinomians (1539). The whole matter was finally settled for Lutheranism by the Formula of Concord in 1577, which recognized a threefold use of the law: (1) to reveal sin, (2) to establish general decency in society at large, and (3) to provide a rule of life for those who have been regenerated through faith in Christ.
"There were several outbreaks of antinomianism in the Puritan movement in seventeenth century England. However, the major controversy over this teaching among Puritans came in New England in the 1630s in connection with an outspoken woman named Anne Marbury Hutchinson, who emigrated to Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1634. At the time, the New England Puritans were attempting to clarify the place of 'preparation for conversion' in covenant (or federal) theology. They had come to the conclusion that salvation lay in fulfilling the conditions of God's covenant with humankind, including preparation for justification and a conscious effort toward sanctification. To some, including Hutchinson, this seemed like an overemphasis on the observance of the law, and she condemned it as a 'covenant of works.' Instead, she stressed the 'covenant of grace,' which she said was apart from the works of the law. She began to hold informal meetings in her home to expound her views and to denounce those of the preachers in Massachusetts.
"In the context of the great stress of the times, it was only a few years before the civil war erupted in England and the colony lived in tense frontier circumstances, the New England clergy probably misunderstood her main concerns and overreacted to what they perceived to be a threat to the unity and internal security of the Puritan community. At a synod of Congregational churches in 1637 Hutchinson was condemned as an antinomian, enthusiast, and heretic, and banished from the colony. In 1638 she moved to Rhode Island.
"In the twentieth century some have viewed existentialist ethics, situation ethics, and moral relativism as forms of antinomianism because these either reject or diminish the normative force of moral law. Certainly most orthodox Christians today agree that the law served the twin purposes of establishing the fact of human sin and of providing moral guidelines for Christian living. In general the various antinomian controversies in history have clarified the legitimate distinctions between law and gospel and between justification and sanctification.
"The Christian community as a whole has rejected antinomianism over the years for several reasons. It has regarded the view as damaging to the unity of the Bible, which demands that one part of the divine revelation must not contradict another. Even more important, it has argued that antinomians misunderstood the nature of justification by faith, which, though granted apart from the works of the law, is not sanctification. In general, orthodoxy teaches that the moral principles of the law are still valid, not as objective strivings but as fruits of the Holy Spirit at work in the life of the believer. This disposes of the objection that since the law is too demanding to be kept, it can be completely thrust aside as irrelevant to the individual living under grace. R. D. LINDER. See also AGRICOLA, JOHANN; JUSTIFICATION; SANCTIFICATION. Bibliography. E. Battis, Saints and Sectaries: Anne Hutchinson and the Antinomian Controversy in the Massachusetts Bay Colony; R. Bertram, "The Radical Dialectic Between Faith and Works in Luther's Lectures on Galatians (1535)," in C. S. Meyer, ed., Luther for an Ecumenical Age; D. D. Hall, ed., The Antinomian Controversy, 1636- 1638: A Documentary History; F. F. Bruce, New Testament History; M. U. Edwards, Jr., Luther and the False Brethren." Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary.

Be sure you read about the doctrine of antinomianism very carefully. It has some serious defects from both a Scriptural point of view and political point of view. And that is the reason for this article. This wonder drug, antinomianism, like all other wonder drugs, has its roots in man's limited reason--not God's Word. The apparent conflict is over setting the Law of God against the Grace of God. To divide the Sovereign's Law is to attempt to impugn the Sovereign Lawgiver Himself. Who has the standing to do that? The two are actually compatible and complementary of each other.

Quite obviously, those who adhere to such doctrines would be called "antinomians":

"ANTINOMIAN. n. [from antinomy, and -an.] a member of a Christian sect which held that faith alone, not obedience to the moral law, is necessary for salvation." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged (1969), p. 81.
"ANTINOMIANS are those who maintain that the law is of no use or obligation under the Gospel dispensation, or who hold doctrines that clearly supersede the necessity of good works and virtuous life. The Antinomians took their origin from John Agricola, about the year 1538, who taught that the law was in no wise necessary under the Gospel; that good works do not promote our salvation, nor ill ones hinder it; that repentance is not to be preached from the decalogue, but only from the Gospel. This sect sprung up in England under the protectorate of Oliver Cromwell; and extended their system of libertinism much farther than Agricola, the disciple of Luther. Some of their teachers expressly maintained, that as the elect cannot fall from grace nor forfeit the divine favor, the wicked actions the commit are not really sinful, nor are to be considered as instances of their violation of the divine law; and that consequently they have no occasion either to confess their sins, or to break them off by repentance. According to them, it is one of the essential and distinctive characters of the elect, that they cannot do any thing which is displeasing to God. Luther, Rutherford, Schlusselburgh, Sedgwick, Gataker, Witsius, Bull, Williams, & c. have written refutations; Crisp, Richardson, Saltmarsh, &c., defences, of the Antinomians; Wignadus, a comparison between ancient and modern Antinomians.
"The doctrine of Agricola was it itself obscure, and is thought to have been represented worse than it really was by Luther, who write against him with acrimony, and the first styled him and his followers Antinomians. Agricola, in defending himself, complained that opinions were imputed to him which he did not hold. The writings of Dr. Crisp in the seventeenth century are considered as highly favourable to Antinomianism, though he acknowledges that, 'in respect of obedience, we are under the law still, or else,' as he adds, 'we are lawless, to live every man as seems good in his own eyes, which no true Christian dares so much as think of.' The following sentiments, however, among others, are taught in his sermons: 'The law is cruel and tyrannical, requiring what is naturally impossible.' 'The sins of the elect were so imputed to Christ, as that though He did not commit them, yet they became actually his transgressions, and ceased to be theirs.' 'The feelings of conscience, which tell them that sin is theirs, arise from a want of knowing the truth.' 'It is but the voice of a lying spirit in the hearts of believers, that saith they have yet sin wasting their consciences, and lying as a burden too heavy for them to bear.' 'Christ's righteousness is so imputed to the elect, that they, ceasing to be sinners, are as righteous as He was, and all that He was.' 'An elect person is not in a condemned state while and unbeliever; and should he happen to die before God call him to believe, he would not be lost.' 'Repentance and confession of sin are not necessary to forgiveness. A believer may certainly conclude before confession, yea, as soon as he hath committed sin, the interest he hath in Christ, and the love of Christ embracing him.' These dangerous sentiments, and others of similar bearing, have been fully answered by many writers; but by none more ably than by the Rev. John Fletcher, in his 'Checks to Antinomianism.'" Watson's Bible Dictionary (1833), p. 63. [This dictionary will be available on-line sometime this summer.]

Antinomy is not a Christian doctrine. This is seen from the following passages of Scripture, for our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, is the One speaking:

"The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord." Matthew 10:24-25.

We can see then if one is a Good and Lawful Christian that he is not greater than his Master, Christ Jesus. If one were greater than his Master, then he or she must have the Testimony of our Father to substantiate this standing. None is forthcoming. This is such a simple Truth, it can be taken for granted and is not open for disputations. For if you dispute this point, you go against our Master, and the Master you claim by calling your self a "christian." Which is it--are you greater than Christ Jesus, and have your own "christianity?" or are you under the Law circumscribing the high and Sacred Ministerial Office of Christ established in Law by our Father?

Our next point to be made is from the following passage, again our Master, Christ Jesus is speaking:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Matthew 5:17.

The very fact that Christ Jesus never destroyed the Law must mean that the Law is still intact and in effect. The key word in the above passage then is fulfil. Many have taken this word to mean that He destroyed the Law. But this does not fit with what He said earlier in the same statement. This would be a contradiction, which would not be the Truth. Would Christ Jesus impugn the Testimony of His Father and Himself? Thus we must invoke the basic rules of hermeneutics, established by Good and Lawful Christians, and adopted by jurists when construing a law, statute, code, rule or regulation, those rules being:

"Magis de bono quam de malo lex intendit --The law favors a good rather than a bad construction." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 1102.
"Voluntas ultima testatoris est perimplenda secundum veram intentionem suam --The will of a testator [*our Father and our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ] is to be fulfilled according to his true intention." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2168.

From here we must ascertain the Will or Intention of our Father revealed in Christ Jesus to properly interpret the above passage of Scripture. When we have done this we proceed:

"Non aliter a significatione verborum recedi oportet quam cum manifestum est, aliud sensisse testatorem --We must never depart from the signification of words, unless it is evident that they are not conformable to the will of the testator [*our Father and our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ]." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 1200.
"A verbis non est recedendum --From the words of the law, there should be no departure." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2124.
"Quoties in verbis nulla est ambiguitas, ibi nulla expositio contra verba expressa fienda est --When there is no ambiguity in the words, then no exposition contrary to the words is to be made." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2160.

Thus, each word in every passage of Scripture has a specific relation to the Giver of it and the One Who executed it, Christ Jesus. That relation is Intention. Because the Giver of the Law is Perfect, His Law must be Perfect. Because the Giver is Perfect, there is only Truth in His Law. Thus, if we do not construe the Intention truthfully, then either Christ Jesus is not True, or we are not True. As a consequence of this, either Christ Jesus' interpretation of our Father's Intention is True and we are all saved by Him; or, if our misconstruction is True, we are all condemned and damned. There is no gray area here. We know this is true because He says:

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6.

Thus our misconstruction would not True and we would be condemned and damned.

"The acts [*Old Testament prophecy and New Testament fulfillment] being clearly in pari materia, they must of course be read together and treated as parts of one system [*of Law]." Potter's Dwarris, p. 189. [Insertion added.]
"IN PARI MATERIA. Upon the same matter or subject. Statutes in pari materia are to be construed together [*as one]; Union Soc. v. Bank, 7 Conn. 456." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 1523.

"Why all these rules?" you ask. Because the Law has two functions: To seek the Truth and preserve it. If the Truth is in Law, then God will preserve it by His Word. This is the issue in the Garden, and why the flaming sword is placed between those out of the Law and those in Law. This is very relevant to our issue of antinomianism for: One, if we see what it is Christ Jesus did and does for us, we can better serve Him in Whose Name we are sent; and Two, it will help us to understand better the Powers appertaining to high and Sacred Ministerial Office of Christ established in prophecy by our Father and executed or fulfilled in the Redemptive Work of Christ Jesus. Let us go to our textual tools to see what the word fulfil means in the original Greek and also what it means in today's English:

4137. PLEROO; from pleres (4134) full. To fill, as a net with fish (Matt 13:48), as a house with a perfumed smell (John 12:3); to fill up, as a valley (Luke 3:5), or measure (Matt 23:32); fill up, supply (Phil 4:19); to fulfill, complete used of time (Matt 2:15; Luke 21:24; John 7:8; Acts 24:27), of number (Rev 6:11), to perfect (John 15:11; Phil 2:2); to finish, end (Luke 7:1); to accomplish, perform fully (Matt 3:15; Luke 9:31; Acts 12:25; Rom 138; Col 4:17); to preach or explain fully (Rom 15:19; Col 1:25); to accomplish or perform what was foretold or prefigured in the OT (Matt 1:22; 21:4; John 19:24, 36); to fully satisfy (Matt 5:17). When Jesus said that He came not to destroy the law or the prophets but to fulfill, meaning that He came not only to fulfill the types and prophecies by His actions and sufferings, but also to perform perfect obedience to the Law of God in His own Person and to enforce and explain it fully by His Doctrine. Thus He has fully satisfied the requirements of the Law." Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study New Testament, King James Version (1994), p. 931.

This word "fulfill" in today's current understanding the following:

"FULFILL or FULFIL. 1. archaic: to make full: FILL. 2. To supply the missing parts of: make whole [*Ps 23:3; Is 49:5-13; Is 58:12; Acts 9:34]: INTEGRATE [*both the Old and the New Testaments in One--Christ Jesus]. 3. a. To carry out: ACCOMPLISH, EXECUTE [*the Will of our Father--Mt 26:39; Jn 4:34; 5:30, 36; 6:38;] b. To finish out: bring to an end [*Jn 17:4; 19:30]; c. To come up to (as a requirement): MEET, ANSWER, SATISFY [*Ps 91:16; Rom 3:25; 1 Jn 2:2; 4:10]; 4. a. To measure up to: convert into reality [*2 Cor 4:14-18; 1 Tim 3:16]; b. To realize the full potentialities of: develop completely: CONSUMMATE. Syn. PERFORM, SATISFY." Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (1981), p. 919. [Insertions added.]
"FULFILL or FULFIL. 1. To fill to the full; to fill entirely. [Archaic.] 2. To carry out (something promised, desired, expected, predicted, etc.); cause to be or happen. 3. To do (something required); obey. 4. To fill the requirements of; satisfy (a condition); answer (a purpose); 5. To complete; to bring to an end. Syn.--Accomplish, realize.--To fulfill is literally to fill quite full, that is, to bring about a full or complete achievement; to accomplish is to exert effort and to persevere in order to bring to perfection; to realize is to make real, namely, whatever has been aimed at." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged (1969), p. 739.

Note, not one thing has changed in the last two thousand years. Did you notice the words "execute," "satisfy," "accomplish," "meet" and "answer"? This is extremely critical for the Good and Lawful Christian. Why? Our Brother James said it best in his Epistle:

"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works [*show me your faith by your "lip service"], and I will show thee my faith by my works." James 2:14-18. [Emphasis added.]

Christ Jesus said, in full accord with the prophecies concerning Him, then, that He would Accomplish perfectly in Himself the Execution or performance of an act desired by the Intention of our Father in satisfaction of a Judgment given according to Law, thereby Answering the Obligation of man to God our Father, and Consummating the reconciliation of God and man in Himself. If one contends that consummation ends a relationship, then how does one ever remain in the state of matrimony after consummating his marriage? Does the man end the wife's life and vice versa? If Christ Jesus had done away with the Law, of what value would be the Judgment He executed? For all judgments are executed in pursuance of the law which decreed the judgment. Without the Law there is no Judgment, and no Redemption, for Redemption is made according to the Obligation of the Law so decreeing the Obligation. Without Redemption there is only condemnation. Thus, one can never be antinomian in his beliefs and acts and maintain he is a disciple of Christ Jesus. They are mutually exclusive.

So, we can say, if nothing has changed by Scripture and by dictionary definitions, what it is that has changed? God cannot and did not change; Christ Jesus did not change; the Holy Spirit is still the same. So what is it that has changed? The presuppositions of the pastors thereby changing the doctrine preached as a consequence. Please note that "doctrine" is not the same as Truth. Christ Jesus so draws the distinction in Scripture and leaves no doubt:

"Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments [*codes, rules and regulations] of men." Mt 15:7-9. [Insertion added.] See also Mk 7:7. [Can you see the current Pharisees now?]

Of what value is this false doctrine of antinomianism, and whose interests does it serve? This is easily answered:

"Divide impera --divide and rule."

Such a simple concept, but what consequences it has, in terms of crippling Christ Jesus' church and state on first glance. But now, who or what is divided? It appears to be the church. But on closer examination, it is not the church--it is humanity. "Humanity?" you ask. Of course. Again, Christ Jesus speaks to us:

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Mt 16:18.

Again He says,

"He that is not with Me is against Me; and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth abroad." Matthew 12:30.

So that the antinomian wars against the Person he claims to follow and worship. One cannot be a Good and Lawful Christian and war against the Sovereign he claims, Who established the Office in Law:

"A distinguishing feature between an 'office' and an 'agency' is that the former originates in the law while the latter originates in contract." Bear River Sand Corp. v. Placer County (1953), 118 C.A.2d 684, 258 P.2d 543.

This raises an impossibility in Law. If one wants the protection appertaining to the high and Sacred Ministerial Office of Christ, he cannot assault it with beliefs contrary to the Law establishing it:

"Res transit cum suo onere --The thing passes with its burden." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2161.
"Cujus est commodum, ejus est onus --He who has the benefit has also the burden." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2130.

To occupy an Office contrary to the Law establishing it is a crime--usurpation of office. Again, there are no gray areas here.

According to Christ Jesus, His church shall always be victorious--the "jurisdiction of hell shall not prevail against it." For a state or church to be victorious it can never be divided or be destroyed-- "[*Being] of the same mind [*in Christ] one toward another." Only man-made "institutions" can be divided and ruled by the natural man. If it were otherwise, then God's Providence may be questioned at will by the "self-willed" and rebellious natural man. But it is not otherwise, and God's Providence is impeccable and can never be questioned. How do we know this to be true? Because of the concurrence and corroboration of the Minds of both our Father and our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ:

"So shall My word be that goeth forth out of My mouth: it shall not return unto Me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." Isaiah 55:11. [Emphasis added.]
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:18.
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away." Matthew 24:35.
"Heaven and earth shall pass away: but My words shall not pass away." Mark 13:31.
"Heaven and earth shall pass away: but My words shall not pass away." Luke 21:33.

The 'Autopsy Report' will be continued next month.

The Modern Gospel Versions

Part One

Written and Compiled by The King's Men

Due to the humanist and satanic attack on The Word of God, and the confusion created by the Babylonian Book Sellers of the modern era through the marketing of their numerous commercially copyrighted versions of The Word of God, the following is offered. It is a short synopsis of a very large subject. The main subjects are 'The Source of Translation,' 'The Doctrine of Preservation' and 'Original Inspiration,' and the main question is, "Who is in control of God's Word?" Next month, we will go into greater detail on the statements below.

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:18
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away." Matthew 24:35

Jesus, the Christ is saying, "My words will not be broken, in Heaven or on earth."

"But He answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4
"And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up." Deuteronomy 6:6-7

He promised to preserve The Words.

God has preserved His Word, in fact!! Those who say He hasn't, or that the specific words are not important, are saying that God is a liar.

Can the loving preservation of the Word of God pass from the hands of His People, into the hands of corrupting profiteers?

The original principle that The Word of God is Sacred has been co-opted for the principle of private interpretation. An example of this is seen by one of the early translators of the various modern Bibles.

"Once the translation of The New Testament is freed from the influence of the theory of verbal inspiration, difficulties cease to be formidable." James Moffatt, Introduction to Moffatt's New Translation of The New Testament (1913).

In other words, "things are quite open ended now, and you have freedom to interpret it any way you want." He did just that.

Preservation of God's Word has always been in God's Hands, not in man's hands.

So, what did God actually say? How can you be sure of the message when you're not sure what God said?

How can you have an inspired message apart from inspired words?

How can we be sure of God's message apart from God's words?

How do you "rightly divide the word of truth" if you don't know the true words?

Where are we as a body of believers if each says, "Well, I believe this version of The Bible (or that version) is the Word of God," or "I like this version better that that one."

There are two sources to all translations.

The King James Bible is translated from the The Greek Textus Receptus, which is also known as The Traditional Text, The Byzantine Text, or The Majority Text.

The numerous modern versions are translated from The Eclectic Texts, or Alexandian Texts. These texts have many discrepancies between them, openly admitted by the modern translators.

Corruption of these Eclectic (pick and choose) manuscripts can be traced from the days of Origen, with his departure from the Greek Textus Receptus.

According to the 1936 edition of the Encyclopedia Britanica, Vol. 16, pp. 900-902, Origen taught that, "the Lord Jesus Christ is a created being who did not have eternal existence as God."

Who was Origen?

Origen was a textual critic in the second century A.D. who corrected numerous portions of several sacred manuscripts. Evidently, he changed them to agree with his own human philosophy of mystical and allegorical ideas. Thus, through deceptive scholarship of this kind, certain manu- scripts became corrupted.

From this Origen source, several of the modern revised versions of The New Testament have been created by Griesbach, Wordsworth, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Darby, Scofield, Westcott & Hort, Tregelles, Alford, etc., all of which are commercially copyrighted.

Out of 200 selected New Testament verses, the following 24 modern versions have important omissions totaling in number, as follows:

New English New Testament...

New International Version...

Revised Standard N.T....

Berkeley Version N.T....

Weymouth's in Modern Speech N.T....

New American Standard N.T....

Good News for Modern Man N.T....

William's New Testament...

Ivan Panin's Numeric N.T....

Goodspeed's American Transl. N.T....

Moffatt's New Translation N.T....

Wuest's Expanded Translation N.T....

Amplified New Testament...

Twentieth Century New Testament...

Phillip's New Testament...

Darby's Translation New Testament...

Living New Testament Paraphrased...

New Confraternity New Testament....

Norlie's New Translation N.T....

Lamsa's Eastern Text N.T....

John Wesley's Translation N.T....

Martin Luther's German N.T....

King James Version N.T....

Textus Receptus (King James Greek)...

Next month, we will document the omissions in greater detail, and further discuss the various translations and their sources.

Human beings and other Humanist creations

Part Two:

More 'Fictions of Law' next month.

"Human being was long held objectionable by a few purists, but is so pervasive today even in formal writing that it should be accepted as standard." A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage (1987) by Brian A. Garner, page 271.

The irony of this statement is that not only have the judges, lawyers, news media, school teachers, etc., convinced everyone that they are a human being and have 'a human spirit,' but that the Christian clergy as well have bought into these fictions of the humanist world.

You will not find anywhere in The Word of God the terms human or human being used, or that God's people are animals. It has become a 'traditional' vehicle by which everyone, Christian and pagan alike, are lumped into the same category--that category being the 'animal' world of the unregenerate, wicked, sinful, earthy, and dissolute natural man, and his 'rat race.'

"What has been found true about rats may be applied to humans." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged (1981), page 1100, quoting E. E. Slosson.

It was not always this way. At an earlier time, before the current degeneration and feminization of the church, a few 'purist' clergy were quite aware that a Christian, being 'a new man,' is no longer a human being, to wit:

"The Sabbath, as an institute given to men for all ages and dispensations, even including that of Paradise, was and is God's means for maintaining in the human family His knowledge and fear as our Maker, Ruler and future Judge. But on that fear all moral institutions repose--the family and the state, as truly as the church. Therefore, men are naturally bound to keep the Sabbath simply as men, and not only as Christians.
After man fell, and came to need redemption, the Sabbath was also continued by God as a means of grace and a gospel institute. But this did not repeal or exclude its original use. The professed Christian has two reasons for observing the Sabbath; every human being has one." The Christian Sabbath (1854), by Robert L. Dabney.

Robert Dabney is a highly respected and recognized biblical scholar of the nineteenth century, and in addition, was the Chaplain for the troops under Stonewall Jackson during Lincoln's War. The pointedly clear distinction between Christians and human beings by this 'purist,' is a jewel not to be ignored.

From the other side of the coin we have one of the secular definitions 'in law' of what a human being is, explained to us in 1926 by Roscoe Pound, who was a 33rd degree Mason and the Dean of Harvard Law School (masquerading under a moral guise through a former Christian college):

"In England in the rise of the court of chancery and development of equity, ethical ideas from the casuist literature of the sixteenth century, and the general notions of right and wrong held by chancellors who were not common-law lawyers, were made liberalizing agencies. In Continental Europe of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the philosophical ideas of juristic writers upon the law of nature were used in the same way. Thus, moral duty was turned into legal duty and put in the foreground in place of legal remedy. Reason was relied upon rather than strict rules. The individual human being, as the moral unit, became the legal unit. It was conceived that the moral principle, simply as such and for that reason, was to be also a legal rule." Law and Morals (1926) by Roscoe Pound, page 30.

So goes the 'benefits' of unregenerate man's 'reason' and 'equity.'

From one side we have the earlier clergy disclosing to us that a Christian, when taking on the yoke of Christ, is no longer a human being, but a Christian being; and, what a human being really is from the ungodly of Harvard. In spite of it all, we are constantly taught by both the 'godly' and ungodly of today that everyone is a human being and a member of the highest animal species. How can this be? What are the consequences of partaking of such heresy?; the heresy of accepting that which is contrary to Scripture--God's people being brought down to the level of the pagan natural man:

"Therefore shall the land mourn, and every one that dwelleth therein shall languish, with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven; yea, the fishes of the sea also shall be taken away. Yet let no man strive, nor reprove another: for thy people are as they that strive with the priest. Therefore shalt thou fall in the day, and the prophet also shall fall with thee in the night, and I will destroy thy mother. My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to Me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. As they were increased, so they sinned against Me: therefore will I change their glory into shame." Hosea 4:3-7

From Matthew Henry's Commentaries on these verses:

"The ruin of those who have helped to ruin others will, in a special manner, be intolerable. And did the children think that when they were in danger of falling, their mother would help them? 'It shall be in vain to expect it, for I will destroy thy mother, Samaria, the mother-city, the whole state, or kingdom, which is as a mother to every part. It shall all be made silent.' Note, When all are involved in guilt nothing less can be expected than that all should be involved in ruin.
Both priests and people rejected knowledge; and justly therefore will God reject them. The reason why the people did not learn, and the priests did not teach, was not because they had not the light, but because they hated it--not because they had not ways of coming to the knowledge of God and of communicating it, but because they had no heart to it; they rejected it. They desired not the knowledge of God's ways, but put it from them, and shut their eyes against the light; and therefore 'I will also reject thee; I will refuse to take cognizance of thee and to own thee; you will not know Me, but bid Me depart; I will therefore say, Depart from Me, I know you not. Thou shalt be no priest to Me.'"

The clergy of today are taught at seminary that Christ was both a 'human being' and God, and in turn teach this heresy, though Scripture does not teach this.

In addition, these Neoplatonic teachers of today tell us that we live under Grace, not under Law. Through this doctrine is created the separation of the inner man and the outer man, known as 'pietism,' even though the being of the Christian is a unity under Christ which includes both the inner man and the outer man. There is not, and should not, be an artificial separation.

The recognition of 'the new man' under Christ seems to elude them. The aspect of the Christian being (the inner and outer man) is ignored in favor of the sinful human being only; their mentality is "There is no ability of repentance in the outer man. Thus, the outer man is not under the authority of Christ, nor is he influenced by The Holy Spirit, and he is condemned forever to engage in lawless activities"-- i.e., commerce, Sabbath breaking, blasphemy, etc., which in turn leaves these 'teachers' free to be utterly lawless, i.e., being a 501(c)3 corporation doing business on The Sabbath. This 'new religion' says, "We've just got to live in this corrupt old world."

Like the humanist, the 'new religion' sees only the world, itself, and its fellow 'human beings'--and nothing more:

"There are no absolutes and man must content himself with being." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged (1981), page 1100, quoting H. E. Clurman.

Until the body of believers are freed of these heresies, the Bride is not capable of making herself ready for the Bridegroom.

"He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be My son." Revelation 21:7

"SOJOURN, v.i.; sojourned, pt., pp.; sojourning, ppr. [Ofr. sojorner, sojourner; It. Soggiornare, from LL. (Hyp.) subdiurnare; sub, under, and diurnus, pertaining to a day, from dies, a day.] to dwell for a time; to dwell or live in a place as a temporary resident, or as a stranger, not considering the place as a permanent habitation; as, Abraham sojourned in Egypt. "Syn.--abide, tarry, dwell, stay, live." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969), p. 1725.

"TRANSIENT. Passing by or away. XVII. -L. transiens (obl. transeunt-, repr. In some uses by transeunt), prp. of transire pass over, f. trans TRANS-+ire go; cf. AMBIENT." Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966), p. 936. [You are just merely passing by the Post Office to receive matter posted to You. This word has absolutely nothing to do with economic status. But it does have everything to do with being "homeless." Homeless is a good word-it has been butchered by the media.]

"TRANSIENT, a. [L. transiens (-entis), ppr. of transire, to go across; trans, across, and ire, to go.]

"1. (A) passing away with time; not permanent; temporary; transitory; (b) passing quickly or soon; fleeting; ephemeral.

"2. Transeunt.

3. Staying only for a short time; not permanently settled, etc.; as, a transient lodger.

"4. In music, designating or of a temporary modulation.

"Syn.--fleeting, fugitive, transitory, temporary, passing, evanescent, ephemeral, momentary, brief." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969), p. 1939.

"The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me. And in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemption for the land." Lev. 25:23-24.

"The Palatine, because of its nearness to the Forum, became the residence district for the statesmen and wealthy people of the city. Hence it was natural that the first emperors had their homes there. Eventually the whole imperial administration was centerd on this hill, and the emperor's buildings covered it completely. So the hill which was named after the patron goddess of the shepherds who built their rude huts there came to be the site of magnificent buildings. Thus it happens that our word palace is derived from the name of the hill.

"Another hill near the Forum, the Capitoline, got its name from the famous temple of Jupiter known as the Capitolium, because it was the 'head' (caput), or chief temple of that god. From it the Capitol at Washington gets its name, as well as the Capitols at the various states. The hill also had on it a fort and the temple of Juno Moneta. In connection with this a mint for coining money was later established, and thus from the word moneta we get our words money and mint." New Elementary Latin (1932), p. 129.

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

A number of ministers were assembled for the discussion of difficult questions, and among others it was asked, "How the command to pray with ceasing could be complied with? Various suppositions were stated; and at length, one of the number was appointed to write an essay upon it, and read it at the next meeting; which being overheard by a plain sensible girl, she exclaimed, "what! a whole month wanted to tell the meaning of that text? It is one of the easiest, and best texts in the Bible."

Pray without Ceasing

"Well," said an old minister, "Mary, what can you say about it? Let us know how you understand it. Can you pray all the time?"

"O yes sir."

"What! when you have so many things to do?"

"Why sir, the more I have to do, the more I can pray."

"Indeed! well Mary, do let us know how it is, for most people think otherwise."

"Well, sir," said the girl, "when I open my eyes in the morning, I pray, 'Lord, open the eyes of my understanding;' and while I am dressing, I pray that I may be clothed with the robe of righteousness; and when I have washed me, I ask for the washing of regeneration; and as I begin my work, I pray that I may have strength equal to my day. When I begin to kindle up the fire, I pray that God's work may revive in my soul; and as I sweep out the house, I pray that my heart may be cleansed from all its impurities; and while preparing and partaking of breakfast, I desire to be fed with the hidden manna and the sincere milk of the Word; and while I am busy with the little children, I look up to God as my Father, and pray for the spirit of adoption, that I may be His child, and so on all day. Everything I do furnishes me with a thought for prayer."

"Enough, enough," cried the old divine, "these things are revealed to babes, and often hidden from the wise and prudent. Go on Mary, pray without ceasing. And as for us, my brethren, let us bless the Lord for this exposition, and remember that He has said the meek will He guide in judgment."

The essay, as a matter of course, was not considered necessary, after this little event occurred.

When at general delivery, the disciple of Christ is everywhere in general, nowhere specific (transient). A 'resident' at an address is nowhere in general, but specifically everywhere 'in the field.'

'general delivery'

For, as Christ said, "... The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head." Matthew 8:20

(For definition of 'in the field,' see Etymologicum Anglicanum in Issue the Sixteenth of The News).

Brothers and Sisters

Those at 'general delivery' will notice that on their envelope label for The News this month, 'Brother' or 'Sister' precedes your Christian Appellation.

The reason for this is: Notice to the world that you are separate and distinct, being a member of the church located at general delivery (and not a belligerent located 'in their field').

As late as 1893 in Chicago, "the general delivery clerk had to deal with the leading banker, the leading politician, the smart clergyman of the town...and the family that will never allow its mail to be delivered by carrier." The Story of Our Post Office, (1893) by Marshall Cushing, p. 186

Lawyers ...and other reptiles

A Really, Really Bad Day...

August 21, 1878: At a meeting in Saratoga, New York, the American Bar Association was founded.

Lawyer: 1. A person who takes this from that, with the result that That hath not where to lay his head. 2. An unnecessary evil. 3. The only man in whom ignorance of the law is not punished.

Lawyer Defined:

--Elbert Hubbard, The Roycroft Dictionary and Book of Epigrams.

Now, that's dedication!!! ...

"Lawyers as a group are no more dedicated to justice or public service than a private utility is dedicated to giving light." --David Mellinkoff, law professor, UCLA.

Practice makes perfect!!! ...

"No one can have been for twenty years in active and varied legal practice without becoming convinced that the profession to which he belongs harbors within itself examples of as base, deliberate, and ingenious depravity as any that, less favored by fortune or cunning, have gravitated into the penitentiary."
--Theodore Bacon, 1882

Now ya see it, now ya don't! ...

"The law is a kind of hocus-pocus science that smiles in your face while it picks your pocket."
--H. L. Mencken

Here lies an honest lawyer, And that is Strange.

Strange, very Strange:

--epitaph for the lawyer Sir John Strange

Assurance or Insurance?

In a letter from Michael Paul: McClinton, he writes:

"I don't have insurance of any kind. With Christ in my heart, God showed me in 1992 that His protection alone was sufficient.

I was driving towards an intersection with the traffic light showing red. I down-shifted the car preparing to stop, when suddenly the traffic light turned to green. My eyes recognized it and I thought how 'nice' the timing was; that I'll just cruise through it--BUT my body did not respond to my thought. It just continued that previous function and stopped the car. In the middle of thinking to myself, "Come on dummy, the light is green," a huge four wheel truck flew through the intersection (that I would have entered) at a high rate of speed, running the red light.

From that day I've never been, and never will be, a proud man of my own will.

I knew then, and now, that doing God's Will can bring Blessings and Rewards that no Babylon tower theory can.

Only those in the Ivory Tower with God Almighty can understand!!"

Martial Law

"I do not know of anything that you can not do under existing circumstances that you could do any better if there was a written proclamation of martial law posted in your district. Or, as some authorities have stated, "Martial law proclaims itself."" A Practical Manual of Martial Law (1940), by Frederick Bernays Wiener, page 20.

Issue the Twenty-seventh

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Fictions of law, Part Three...

Judge quotes Scripture' Update...

Doing God's Business...

Rehabilitation through His Word...

Timeline of Tyranny, Part Two...

The 501(c)-3 Corpse, Part One...

Broken Ramparts of Creed and Custom...

Bits and Pieces...

Etymologicum Anglicanum ...

The cause, origin and foundation of current law, straight from the horse's mouth.

For those who continue to wonder why 'man's law' seems to be devoid of truth and justice, the following self-explanatory admissions from its law profession are presented for your edification.

presented by Randy Lee

When will The Bride finally realize that the only Truth is found--as it always has been and always will be--in and through Her Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ???

The Foundation of Today's Courts,

revealed by law professor L.L. Fuller

"Probably no lawyer would deny that judges and writers on legal topics frequently make statements which they know to be false. These statements are called 'fictions.' There is scarcely a field of the law in which one does not encounter one after another of these conceits of the legal imagination. Sometimes they take the form of pretenses as obvious and guileless as the 'let's play' of children, as Roscoe Pound explained in his Interpretations of Legal History, page 4, that:

"From time to time they (the judges) make the inevitable readjustments...by fictions often comparable to the 'let's play' this and that of children."

At other times they assume a more subtle character and effect their entrance into the law under the cover of such grammatical disguises as, "the law presumes," "it must be implied," "the plaintiff must be deemed," etc. Nor is it true, as is sometimes tacitly assumed, that fictions are to be found only in court decisions, where they are the product of the peculiar situation of the judge, who must, or feels that he must, to some extent conceal the true nature of his activities. Fictions are to be found not only in the opinions of judges, but in critical treatises written by men free from any of the influences which supposedly restrain the judge and warp his expression. Even the austere science of Jurisprudence has not found it possible to dispense with fiction. The influence of the fiction extends to every department of the jurist's activity.

Yet it cannot be said that this circumstance has ever caused the legal profession much embarrassment. Laymen frequently complain of the law; they very seldom complain that it is founded upon fictions." 25 Illinois Law Review, Dec. 1930 'Legal Fictions' by Univ. of Illinois Law Professor L. L. Fuller.

Russian Proverb

"A judge is like a carpenter; what he wants, he carves."

Law and reality to the law profession,

revealed by Legal History professor Pierre de Tourtoulon

"The oldest and most essential ideas are nearly all, if not all, fictitious. Marriage is a fictitious purchase and sale, the power of a father is a fictitious master's power, adoption is a fictitious fatherhood, in certain respects the last will and testament is (at least sometimes is) a fictitious adoption, legitimation assumes fictitiously a marriage which never existed, etc. It would not therefore be inaccurate to claim that our reality is simply fiction differentiated, and that at bottom is reduced to a series of fictions heaped one upon another in successive layers." 'Philosophy in the Development of Law,' (1922), p. 387, by Pierre de Tourtoulon, University of Lausanne Professor of Legal History.

The source of fictions of law,

revealed by Jeremy Bentham

"Fictions were invented by the Roman prætors, who, not possessing the power to abrogate the law, were nevertheless willing to derogate from it, under the pretense of doing equity. Fiction is the resource of weakness, which, in order to obtain its object, assumes as a fact, what is known to be contrary to truth: when the legislator desires to accomplish his object, he need not feign--he commands. Fictions of law owe their origin to the legislative usurption of the bench." 4 Benth. Ev. 300.

What is truth to the law profession?,

revealed L.L. Fuller

"A fiction is frequently a metaphorical way of expressing a truth. The truth of any given statement is only a question of its adequacy. No statement is an entirely adequate expression of reality, but we reserve the label "false" for those statements involving an inadequacy which is outstanding or unusual. The truth of a statement is, then, a question of degree." 25 Illinois Law Review, Dec. 1930, 'Legal Fictions' by Univ. of Ill. Law Professor L. L. Fuller.

Today's juristic truth,

revealed by L.L. Fuller

"We might erect a legal world in which silence is consent, taking is finding, attracting is inviting, to bring a suit is to achieve Roman citizenship; a world in which even the commonest expressions were to be understood in a Pickwickian sense. This attitude has, indeed, been dignified by a name--'the theory of the juristic truth of fictions.' " 25 Illinois Law Review, Dec. 1930, page 378, 'Legal Fictions' by Univ. of Illinois Law Professor L. L. Fuller.

Corporations and natural persons as legal fictions with legal rights,

revealed by L.L. Fuller

"It is clear that the corporation, taken as a unit, must be treated by the courts and legislatures in that somewhat complex fashion which we epitomize by saying that legal rights and duties are attributed to the corporation. It is further clear that this treatment of the corporation bears a striking resemblance to that accorded 'natural persons.' It then follows that natural persons and corporations are to some extent treated in the same way in the law; they form a 'class.' Assuming, however, that it is worth while having a name for this common class formed by natural persons and corporations, is the word 'person' the most desirable name? Would 'legal subject' be better? Or 'right-and-duty-bearing-unit'?" 25 Illinois Law Review, Dec. 1930, p.373, 'Legal Fictions' by Univ. of Illinois Law Professor L. L. Fuller.

Roman vs. English Fiction

revealed by L.L. Fuller

"The Roman fiction carried a grammatical acknowledgment of its falsity; the English fiction appeared as a statement of fact; its fictitious character was apparent only to the initiate. The Roman fiction was an assumptive fiction, a fiction taking an 'as if' form; the English fiction was (and is) a fiction ordinarily taking an 'is' or assertive form." 25 Illinois Law Review, Dec. 1930, page 390, 'Legal Fictions' by Univ. of Illinois Law Professor L. L. Fuller.

Jeremy Bentham on fictions of law

from his "Works," Browning's Edition.

"In English law, fiction is a syphilis, which runs in every vein, and carries into every part of the system the principle of rottenness." vol. 5, page 92.

"It [a legal fiction] affords presumptive and conclusive evidence of moral turpitude in those by whom it was invented and first employed. It has never been used but with bad effect." vol. 9, page 77.

"Fictions of use to justice? Exactly as swindling is to trade." vol. 7, page 283.

"Legal fictions are the most pernicious and basest sort of lying." vol. 6, page 582.

The father of the humanist lawyers

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." John 8:44

More 'fictions of law' next month.

'Judge quotes Scripture' Update

February 25, 1998 Bellevue, Nebraska

Bellevue Leader

Bible use in court backed

Religion in the courtroom

By JOE DEJKA
Leader senior writer

The battle lines of a religious debate with far-reaching implications were drawn Monday evening.

The Nebraska Attorney General's Office leaped to the defense of Sarpy County District Court Judge George Thompson, who is accused of bias for quoting the Bible before he sentenced a gay man to prison for sexual assault on a teen-age boy.

In a legal brief filed Monday challenging Aaron Pattno's appeal of his prison sentence, Assistant Attorney General David Bydalek said Pattno deserved his sentence and that judges have the right to make moral pronouncements at sentencing.

Bydalek said that to find evidence of religion in government, the Nebraska Court of Appeals need look no farther than the walls of The Nebraska Supreme Court Chamber, which is adorned with a permanent representation of the Ten Commandments.

Judges must avoid making sentencing decisions based on their own personal biases or prejudices, he said.

However, "this does not mean that judges are required to function as amoral automatons, whose sentencing pronouncements must be censored of any reference to moral turpitude, need for rehabilitation or protection of the public health, safety, welfare and morals," he said.

Bydalek said Pattno apparently seeks to put Thompson on trial and tap into "the growing institutional hostility" towards persons of faith and towards any public expression or reference to religion.

He said that religious references do not in themselves constitute bias or prejudice, and he noted the following examples:

- The Nebraska Supreme Court opens each session with a recognition of God;
- The Nebraska Legislature begins each day in prayer;
- The judges of The Nebraska Supreme Court sit in session beneath a large chiseled banner proclaiming that "Eyes and Ears are Poor Witnesses When the Soul is Barbarous;"
- Moses, Solomon and St. John greet those entering the south entrance of the Capitol to attend court;
- The second floor mosaic of the State Capitol forms an ornate cross;
- The Preamble to the Nebraska Constitution acknowledges the gratitude of the people of Nebraska to "Almighty God;"
- The Nebraska Constitution expressly states that religion and morality are "essential to good government."

Bydalek said psychological tests of Pattno prior to sentencing indicated "pedophile tendencies."

He said Pattno met his victim over the Internet, sent him love messages, spoke of marrying him, met with him several times without his parents' knowledge and followed the victim's family on vacation to Lake Okoboji, Iowa, to rendezvous with the victim, after his arrest.

He said Pattno pleaded guilty to the crime, but another sexual assault charge against him was dismissed.

Bydalek said the victim told police that Pattno and he kissed, and Pattno fondled him inappropriately.

Pattno is a "child predator" who is trying "to cloak himself in the mantel of civil rights and sexual orientation," he said. His crime would have been just as reprehensible had the victim been a girl, he said.

Judges, like everyone, form certain world views based upon their upbringing, experiences and education, he said. The world views of many judges are doubtless shaped to some extent by their religious beliefs, he said.

"The judge's strong remarks during sentencing were grounded solely on evidence that Pattno committed one of the most abhorrent crimes on the State's books: the sexual assault of a child by an adult," he said.

Overturning the sentence could have a "chilling effect and effectively result in a ban on religious expression by Nebraska judges," Bydalek said.

The Nebraska Constitution prohibits religious tests or qualifications on judges, he said.

"Judicial reference to the Bible is not a danger to the rule of law or to the impartiality of the judiciary," Bydalek said.

"On the contrary, the Bible is the source of these basic concepts."

Pattno's Omaha attorney, Mark Delman, appealed his sentence and said the judge violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and abused his discretion.

Delman wants the Nebraska Court of Appeals to throw out his client's prison sentence.

Delman claims Thompson showed bias against his client when he read a Bible passage that refers to "men committing shameless acts with men."

Delman said Thompson should have removed himself from the case because of his strong feelings.

Delman asked the court to overturn Pattno's sentence of 20 months - 5 years in the Nebraska Department of Corrections. He said his client deserves probation, instead.

According to Delman's brief, Pattno was 25 years old last spring when he developed a "romantic" relationship with the 13-year-old boy that led to sexual contact between them.

Pattno pleaded guilty Aug. 12, 1997 to sexual assault of a child by contact.

Before Thompson pronounced sentence, he said, the judge read Scripture that included the following passage, Romans 1:26-27:

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

Note from The King's Men: All Christians please beware: The above quote from Romans is a commercially copyrighted restatement of the Law. A restatement of the Law, is not The Law. Comparing the above with the authorized King James (authorized by the true church of England and America), we see the above restatement:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet." Rom 1:26-27

Note also that Jesus, the Christ, is never mentioned from the bench. Is Christ's preeminence being usurped in this case? Is this intentional? Maxim of Law: "Outward acts indicate inward intent" We must inquire and know before we act: Are these officers from The State of Nebraska, of God, appearing to be of God, or is there another agenda involved?:

"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." I John 4:2-3
"That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Phil. 2:10-11

For those who want to put these important questions to Judge Thompson, Attorney-General Donald Stenberg and Assistant Attorney General David Bydalek. Their locations are:

George A. Thompson - 1210 Golden Gate Drive - Room 3125 - Papillion, Nebraska [68046] and,

Donald Stenberg/David Bydalek - Room 2115 - State Capitol Building - Lincoln, Nebraska [68509]

Doing God's Business

An open letter by John Anthony

The following is an open letter to all, received this month from our Brother John Anthony in Sacramento, California. For those who are seeking "to come out of her," it is our hope that you will find it to be edifying and encouraging in your Righteous quest.

Dear Friends and Brothers in Christ,

This communication is long overdue and only so because I want to be sure that God would be glorified, and not man.

When God through the Holy Spirit convicts men of sin there should be great sorrow, repentance, and change. All my life the theology of sanctification was never explained to me. It was some abstract thought wrapped up in an emotional experience that did not last. However, when I began to do some research into the early Reformed doctrines, I found that what was taught to me as I was growing up did not agree with what I was learning through Calvin's Institutes and other great men of faith. So, I asked God to help me change my mind (repent) and to do that which was according to God's Law and give no thought of ridicule and persecution that I would receive from family, friends, and so-called business associates.

Remember the old adage: blood is thicker than water? Well, "Spirit is thicker than blood."

When family and friends laughed and said "I told you so," there were Christian brothers and sisters to help us and lead us in the right direction.

Years ago I became caught up in the patriot movement, and in so doing my wife and family lost almost everything we owned to the IRS. Through this hardship, God was able to get a hold of my heart and guide me to the real truth.

The truth of the matter is that God's Law is the only law that works.

I have been in business for 22 years and lost it by seizure to the IRS, but through God's Providence, and prayers, was able to get God's business back (after 10 days of IRS confiscation had passed). It was during this time that after attending two Christian Liberty Seminars, and diligent study and prayer, I realized that 'business' was a bad place to be in. I knew what had to be done but fear said, "If you do things God's way, you'll stave to death." My fear was not trusting God that He would provide all my needs, Philippians 4:19. Now I began to shed some of the corporate underpinnings that were keeping me bound to the business world.

The bank account was dropped. No more credit cards were accepted, and no open accounts or written contracts. I began to understand that God had given me an earthly calling and that now I was a religious tradesman.

This concept was new and strange to me, but totally Biblical. How could I manage to work for cash and provide for my family? How could I disconnect my 20 year long phone number and give up a yellow pages ad that I relied on for so much business? We do have a phone Number, not a phone. It is not listed and is only given to those whom we have worked for in the past, and whom I know personally.

I knew what had to be done, and little by little began this new journey of faith!!!!!!!! At first the postman was upset that I had blocked my mailbox slot. Not having him around now is somewhat of a relief. There are no address numbers on our small walk-up shop. I am not in general delivery yet, but still working on it.

It has been a slow process--one that should be carefully thought out, prayed about, and studied.

My wife and myself have been working in this new manner for almost a year, and God has blessed us in spite of the ridicule and harassment of "former" associates. Such as, "well, you just can't run your business on a cash only basis"...blah! blah! blah!!!!!!!

Marilyn and I have been blessed by The King's Men. Especially John William, John Joseph, and Randy Lee for their encouragement, support, and the newsletter.

I trust that this communication will be of some help and encouragement to someone that is struggling to survive in the not so friendly work world.

Enclosed is a copy of a statement that was given to all of my former accounts receivable [*see below]. This was something I had to do because the Scripture makes clear we are to be paid at the end of the day. Leviticus 19:13.

Standing for Christ and God's Law in the world is not for the timid or weak hearted. One has to believe these concepts from their inner being, because they are Biblical principals, and they are spiritual truths.

I thank our God for giving me true repentance, and hope by the grace of God others will repent and change their mind about how they must conduct themselves in providing for their wives and families.

For His Glory, Honor, and kingdom on earth,

John Anthony

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dear _______________

It has been brought to my attention by the Word of God, that I must, Being a Good and Lawful Christian Man, be paid at the end of the working day. The premise of this is found in the Old Testament of the Bible in Leviticus 19:13: "Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until morning."

I personally thank you for your patronage in the past, and your prompt payments. However, in the future I will need to be paid at the end of the day. I hope we can still be of assistance to you and/or your company in the future.

Sincerely,

John Anthony: a Good and Lawful Christian Man working as a locksmith.

Rehabilitation through God's Holy Word

"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:"

presented by Randy Lee

We recently received the following letter from a Brother in Christ who is currently 'residing' in a Pennsylvania prison. It is our hope that you will partake of and support, as we are, the 'blessings by implication' of this Brother's labors.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The twenty-fifth day of the second month
in the Year of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ,
nineteen hundred ninety-eight.

John William
Randy Lee
John Joseph, et al.

Brothers in Christ, God Bless you in your righteous labors in His Holy Name:

Would you please send me a copy of whatever literature and books you may be able to spare me at this time. I am a dedicated Christian who teaches the inmates here Bible Studies in God's Holy Word, and as such, possess a very valuable opportunity to also teach them the Godly Christian Heritage of our Country's rich History, being founded, grounded, and established in the worship of our Great Creator, Sustainer, and Enabler of hearts to live for Him, our Father Jehovah God.

I have been blessed with a constant supply of those who are hungering for a greater depth of knowledge in both God's Word--and--God's awesome Blessings upon this people to whom He has given this great and vast inheritance; and I am enabled, by Him,--and through Him,--to present the teaching, not only of His Holy Word, but also the glorious example experienced by the founders of this great nation as is so deeply and richly ingrained in our glorious history (the true history from the old-old history perspective, not the newly and lately criminally adulterated versions produced and dispensed today) from it's Divinely Established origin to this present day sad scenario caused by the sinful apathy of this present age generation, and our evil satanic "leaders."

I have been allowed to read--digest--devour--some few pieces of your greatly commendable literature, which has impressed me tremendously as to your Godly Christian understanding of both our glorious beginnings, the intervening achievements (through Him) as well as the present-day disintegration of our once respected and revered government. I am greatly impressed by your dedication to Him, while building your teaching outreach upon His Holy Word. I greatly desire, upon my release from here, to not only continue studying your literature, but to be able and competent, at that time, to form and establish a Christian Jural Society and Common Law Court system in this area of the country, and bind it to and share it's success with others so likewise minded. I have unfortunately been separated from and cut off from my former (and only) source of your material. Would you be so kind as to supply me with whatever literature you may be able to spare to an indigent inmate at this time, and from time to time as you may be able to afford. I would so very much like to continue using your information to teach my students, as I also teach them God's Holy Word. I will not be able to repay you until approximately 2 1/2 years, at which time I will be released and can get a job and repay you. This may very well be before 2 1/2 years but I'm not sure.

I have read and practically memorized the following, so I do not need copies of them: 1. 'The Book of the Hundreds,' 2. 'Law of Estoppel,' 3. 'Writ of Habeas Corpus,' 4. 'Military Government and Martial Law.' Any others I will sincerely appreciate.

Thank you for your kindness and--May God Richly Bless You,

Lawrence William

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As all Christians know, the only way for permanent 'rehabilitation' is through The Word of God. As evidenced above, they can take away your freedom, but they can never take away your liberty in Christ--that liberty being 'The Perfect Law of Liberty,' "for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee," Hebrews 13:5; And, "Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them; and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body." Hebrews 13:3.

We hope that you will join with us in helping to supply this Brother with the spiritual and material needs for his ministry, in any way you can--those needs being most importantly; prayers and encouragement, and then with the blessings of the tools of knowledge that you can spare, for:"freely ye have received, freely give." Matthew 10:8b.

Timeline of Tyranny:

The Public School System

July 4: American Federation of Teachers (AFT) president Albert Shanker addresses the 3200 delegates representing 743,000 members of the AFT at its 71st convention, and claims: "95% of the kids who go to college in the United States would not be admitted to college anywhere else in the world. Only 3-6% of high school graduates meet college standards on a worldwide basis. Only 3-6% know the stuff in their field." This is an important admission, because it shows that American students are being graduated without being educated, and most parents are unaware of this. A possible explanation is that while parents are told throughout their children's lives that they are scoring "above average" on nationally standardized achievement tests, they are not often told that those tests are "re-normed" about every 5 years, and the "norm" over the past 30 years has been declining.

Compiled by John Quade

1990

1990

September 19: David Hornbeck presents his draft proposal for what becomes known as The Iowa Initiative for World-Class Schools. His proposal includes outcome-based education, working in groups, and testing related to feelings, behaviors, values, opinions and attitudes. Hornbeck is an attorney with 2 theological degrees (one from Union Theological Seminary and one from Oxford University) who has been State Superintendent of Schools in Maryland and Chairman of the Board of 1991.

"Educating for the New World Order" by B. K. Eakmaan, is published. She is a former liaison to the U. S. Department of Education and in her book are detailed incidents and information concerning a supercomputer known as Elementary and Secondary Integrated Data Systems (the ESIDS), brought on-line by the U. S. Department of Education in 1988. She describes the ominous threat that this supercomputer (which can, via students' Social Security numbers, access information concerning parental attitudes, etc.) system poses to every American's right to privacy. In her book, she warns: "Whatever faction winds up in control of American politics in the year 2000 will inherit this new supercomputer. With easy access to cross-referenceable personal information, including value judgments and political viewpoints, this faction will become powerful beyond imagination."

February: Chronicles includes "In Loco Parentis" by Laura Rogers, describing a program where children are given a computer code number so that they can be tracked the rest of their lives. The program is the federally-funded "Parents as Teachers," now in about forty states, where a "parent educator" is assigned to the home and bonds with the family. A battery of tests are administered, free services are offered, and the "parent educator" must legally report any "suspected" child abuse, such as if the parents "refuse to take recommended services." The program also receives state tax dollars and funding from the Ford, Carnegie, New World, Rockefeller, and other foundations. The program is fully implemented by 1995 and ultimately is estimated to cost seventy-five to one hundred billion dollars. The Education Commission of the States announces eight spin-off programs with different names but similar goals.

March: The Atlantic Monthly includes "Liberal Education" by Dinesh D'Souza, who comments, regarding a "new (politically correct, 'PC') thinking," that "a new world view is being consolidated .... It is no exaggeration to call it a revolution ... [that] seeks a fundamental restructuring of American society." He then identifies Duke University as one of the leaders in this "new thinking," and quotes Prof. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. there as one of its supporters who "identified what he called 'a rainbow coalition of Blacks, leftists, feminists, deconstructionists, and Marxists' who have now infiltrated academia and are 'ready to take control.' It will not be much longer. As the old guard retires, we will be in charge. Then, of course, the universities will become more liberal politically." D'Souza also repeatedly quotes Marxist writers.

June 6: ABC Television's "Prime Time Live" features Thaddeus Lott, a principal of a school in Houston where phonics is used to teach reading. Nearly all of the students are poor Black youths working two grade levels above average. They are also using the Saxon method of teaching math, using drills and repetition. The principal and teachers say the school system's bureaucrats are shorting them and harassing them because of their traditional educational philosophy and show the bureaucrats' racist attitude that poor Black youths should not be scoring as well as affluent white students.

Ironically, this "Prime Time Live" program aired the same day as the National Assessment of Educational Progress math results are released showing how badly American students are doing in that subject. For example, 34% of the eighth graders and 23% of the twelfth graders tested could not add the prices of soup, hamburger with fries, and cola, which were given in the test. However, many of them watched several hours of television daily. Similarly, 7812 eleventh graders were given a test in history, and one-third thought Columbus discovered the New World after 1750, while 40% could not correctly name the half-century in which the First World War occurred.

July 8: 'The New American Schools Development Corporation' is formally incorporated. It was formed by American business leaders at the request of President Bush; and based on 6 'National Education Goals,' NASDC on July 7, 1992 will select 11 Design Teams to produce "New American Schools." One of the award winning programs will be titled "Odyssey," and will include 'students from birth,' 'teaching world citizenship,' and will require 220 hours of community service by the time students graduate. Seven 'Council on Foreign Relations' members and 5 members of the 'Committee for Economic Development' are on the NASDC Board of Directors.

December: The Blumenfeld Education Letter contains information showing the results of the de-emphasis upon academic basics in schools, as Sam Blumenfeld points out regarding verbal SAT scores that "in 1972, 116,630 students scored between 600 and 800, the highest possible score, while 71,084 scored between 200 and 299 at the bottom of the scale. The total number of students who took the test in 1972 was 1,022,820. In 1991, the situation is exactly the reverse. The number of students achieving the highest score (600-800) had dropped precipitously to 74,836, and the number achieving the lowest score (200-299) had increased to over 134,600. The number of students who took the test in 1991 was 1,032,685. The dumbing down [of American education] has indeed taken place, and the figures are there to prove it." Is this any wonder, when studies indicate that a typical eighth grader watches twenty-one and a half hours of television each week, compared with just five and a half hours on homework and two hours on reading?

December 5: With William Spady's Outcome-Based Education (OBE) gaining popularity around the country, proponents will begin to point to Jefferson County Schools as an example of OBE success. The draft of "Jefferson County School Student Exit Outcomes" dated this day shows the importance of values, as "we will be continuously developing individuals who adopts, assesses, articulates, and applies a value system which shapes a personal vision of life,...and an informed contributor who promotes and supports values, practices and policies that enhance the quality of life in a shrinking world" where "changing family structures" are a "future trend." Spady's ideas about values have been revealed in his September 1987 document, "Future Trends: Considerations in Developing Exit Outcomes," in which he states: "Despite the historical trend toward intellectual enlightenment and cultural pluralism, there has been a major rise in religious and political orthodoxy, intolerance, fundamentalism, and conservatism with which young people will have to be prepared to deal." Further along this line, Spady along with his co-worker Kit Marshall, in conjunction with the Department of Defense (Mediterranean Region), developed an assessment of the future that said the world would be characterized by "a fragile and global environment that requires altering economic consumption patterns and quality of life standards and taking collective responsibility for promoting health and wellness,...(and) transforming patterns of family and personal support systems that require expanding people's networks of meaningful relationships beyond traditional family boundaries." Approximately 20 years ago, Spady coined the term "Outcome-Based," and has written that "the real meaning of the term Outcome-Based is far different from the way most people think of it; the authentic meaning of the term has tremendous implications for the complete transformation of our educational system...(involving) orientations - the attitudinal, affective, motivational, and relational elements that also make up a performance... Its presence in our current schools has evolved out of the theoretical and applied research of John Carroll (1963) and Benjamin Bloom (1968)... What we know as Mastery Learning, Competency-Based Education, and Outcome-Based Education all set criterion-based performance standards identically for all students, and allow the time needed to reach that standard to vary... Subject content takes on the role of being a vehicle to assist in the cultivation and integration of higher-order competencies--things such as 'critical thinking'...Averaging systems and comparative grading will disappear as the concept of culminating achievement takes hold .... Textbooks will be replaced by intended outcomes of significance as the driving force in curriculum design and delivery, curriculum tracking will disappear, there will he far less reliance on norm-referenced standardized tests...." Spady will claim that James Block first introduced him to the basic principles of Mastery Learning in 1969. In Spady's "Mission-Driven Transformational Design," and "Strategic Planning for Strategic OBE Design" includes "a process that will create a set of beliefs and values." The Schwahn/Spady "Strategic Design Prototype" includes "Required (Value-Added) Life-Roles" such as the "(Self-Actualizing) Person." It should he noted that "self-actualization" is at the top of the hierarchy of needs developed by Abraham Maslow, the father of "Third Force" (Humanistic) Psychology. Spady has also been the Director of the federally-funded FarWest Laboratory Outcome-Based Education Project, and has said that the 3 main trends in Outcome-Based design and delivery models are Traditional OBE, Transitional OBE, and Transformational OBE.

January 23: The Daily Express (Britain) publishes a report that "Kenneth Clarke yesterday gave the go-ahead for the biggest shake-up in junior education since the war by putting the 3Rs back on top of the curriculum. Now a classroom revolution is set to sweep through 23,000 primary schools in England and Wales as the Education Secretary calls for teachers to get back to basics. Mr. Clarke acted after giving first official confirmation of an alarming fall in reading, writing and arithmetic standards. It has prompted his demand for a return to old-fashioned lessons where teachers address the whole class... Out will go... the 'playschool' atmosphere in many schools where teachers help children individually learn at their own pace.... In will come... youngsters being taught specific subjects as a whole class by specialist teachers... Mr. Clarke aims to change the 'child-centered' techniques ... (that) swept through classrooms in the sixties and still prevails in most of them. At its heart is the belief that children learn best when they discover for themselves rather than being told.... The report (on educational reform) lends great weight to the principal of a 'knowledge base' and firmly dismisses modern trendy methods. It says: First there is a persistent and damaging belief children should never be told things, only asked questions.

Second, there is a belief children must never point out where a pupil is wrong. And finally the tendency has been to promote indirect teaching methods where pupils work on their own."

Educator Peg Luksik delivers a number of lectures around the nation concerning "Who Controls the Children?" Using her home state of Pennsylvania as an example, she describes the Educational Quality Assessment used there (and in many other states) from 1969 to 1989. Each school district had to meet the assessment's goals, which were not about factual knowledge, but focus of control. Only 30 EQA questions were academic and 385 were about attitudes. She stresses that the same types of assessments are still in use around the U. S. Under "citizenship," students were asked whether they would join a group known as the "Midnight Marauders" (spray painting vandals) if their best friend or the most popular students had joined, and the correct answer was "Yes." She says the government was scoring for "rapid emotional adjustment without protest," which was considered a desirable goal for the future.

During April 22-25, 1993, Spady's High Success Network will hold its second international conference on "Advancing the Frontiers of Outcome-Based Restructuring" with presentations and workshops on such topics as 'The Clinton Restructuring Priorities,' 'Criterion-Based Portfolios,' 'Performance-Based Credit,' and 'Site-Based Change Strategies.'

After an introduction about OBE, Peg Luksik then looks at the New American Schools Development Corporation proposals, and they seem to be OBE with computer assisted instruction as a common aspect. The computer pulls up biographical data and learning styles of students, which she says the states have compiled (the states can get federally approved programs targeted to specific student populations). The data was mandated by the National Center for Education Statistics (federal government), and includes such information as family responsibility, family social and cultural information, psychological test results (including students' stand on controversial issues). Data is accessed by government agencies through EXPRESS (Exchange of Permanent Records Electronically for Students and Schools). She describes programs around the U. S., such as one with an "honesty" scale piloted in Indiana, and a survey in Iowa asking under its "nationality" section questions such as "Which are more likely to have a large family?" and "Which is more likely to eliminate an entire race of people?"

She warns that some people feel that because their children are in private or home schools, they have no problem. However, she says, States are now beginning to require that schools be 'accredited' and teachers 'certified,' which the State will do only if the State's goals concerning the right 'attitudes' are met. States will take over schools not meeting State standards, and they can even take over taxing authority. And with OBE bankrupting school districts, the States will take over more and more schools. She indicates that more and more social services will be brought into the schools, and that will lessen the role of parents. She concludes by saying that the issue really comes down to "Who controls the children?"

Her account of the government's increasing attempts at control reminds one that H. G. Wells wrote in "New Worlds for Old" (1908) "that Socialism could be achieved without popular support through a slowly executed plan to install government bureaucracies which would actually run the nation, rather than elected officials running the country."

June, "Under the Spell of Mother Earth," by Berit Kjos (author of "Your Child and the New Age") describes former U. N. Assistant Secretary-General (and now Chancellor of the University for Peace) Robert Muller's endorsement of Andy LePage's "Transforming Education" (1987). She writes: "Andy LePage's book," says Muller, "opens the curtain on one of the most exciting and promising philosophical educational debates there ever was on this planet." What planetary philosophy does LePage teach? He emphasizes the need to discard the 'disease of dualism' (dividing reality into two opposing forces - physical and spiritual). He challenges educators to awaken students to their oneness with the entire creation (monism) through models such as Hatha Yoga, witchcraft, and Native American spiritism. But do educators really buy this religious dogma? "LePage has written what may well become one of the most important books in education," says Professor Sidney B. Simon, father of 'values clarification,' "which should be given to every new teacher, every new principal, and certainly, to every new school board member. Should that happen, the education of our children would take a turn for the better that might he enough to save us all."

July 23: Public Law 102-325 is passed, known as "The Higher Education Amendments of 1992," and includes a provision of $20 million appropriated for October 1, 1992 to September 30, 1997 for the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards to "be used for research and development activities directly related to the development of teacher assessment and certification procedures for elementary and secondary school teachers."

August: Dr. Walter Jordan-Davis of the Educational Testing Service (ETS) presents "A Question of Authenticity: Performance-Based Assessment and Its Impact on Teaching and Learning," in which he promotes Benjamin Bloom's Taxonomy and 'critical thinking.' ETS administers the College Boards (SATS) and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). In this presentation, Dr. Jordan-Davis states: "The evolution from traditional standardized testing instruments to performance-based assessment will require points of light to guide developers of new assessments through the testing/assessment transition."

1993

March: In the premier issue of Right to Read Report, the president of the National Right to Read Foundation, Robert W. Sweet, Jr., states: "At present 80 to 90 percent of reading teachers use methods of instruction that are counterproductive, cannot be supported by research and actually, in many cases, contribute to illiteracy... Before 1930, there were no more than 3 million illiterates, and they were mostly over age 50 and had never been to school. By 1990, more than 30-35 million U.S. citizen could not read and most of them are under 50 and have attended school for at least 8 years... America need not have a reading problem because we know what works: intensive, systematic phonics."

1993

June: L.A. Times Syndicated columnist Cal Thomas quotes Chris Whittle as saying, "America can have 50,000 New Age elementary schools on-line by the year 2000." Whittle originated "The Edison Project" of innovative new schools across the country, as well as "Channel One" used by many schools around the nation; and he's a very close friend of U. S. Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander. Alexander has written that the book which has changed his own thinking the most, and which he has tried to read once a year since it was published, is New Ager Rene Dubos' "A God Within." In this, Plato is quoted as saying, "In reality the greatest blessings come to us through madness, when it is sent as a gift of the gods ... madness, which comes from god, is superior to sanity, which is of human origin." Dubos explains that "apparently certain drugs can help in generating this inspired state," and introduces reincarnation by quoting Mirandola: 'Thou shalt have the power to degenerate into lower forms of life, which are brutish. Thou shalt have the power ... to be reborn into higher forms, which are divine."

On June 14, 1986, Ted Turner said when addressing about 1000 "futurists" at John Denver's Windstar Institute at Snowmass Village, Colorado, that "America must elect a 'new age' president if it wants to survive through the year 2000" (according to "Broadcaster Ties Survival to 'New Age' President," The Denver Post, June 15, 1986). And an article in the January 25, 1993 issue of Newsweek Magazine about President Clinton is titled "The New Age President." In addition, a New York Times headline for December 31, 1992 says: "The New Year at a New Age Retreat: The Clintons in Agreeable Company.' It is about the Clintons' attending the Renaissance Weekend at Hilton Head, South Carolina, for the past 8 years. Interestingly, the Clintons were introduced to this event 8 years ago by South Carolina Governor at the time Richard Riley, whom President Clinton will appoint as his Secretary of Education.

In conclusion, we will only add, that the entire slide of the educational system in this land and its "Timeline of Tyranny" could have been prevented if only the Christians and their church had been awake to speak out in the 1830's when Horace Mann began publishing his "Essays on Education." It is again the duty of the church to speak out to stem the tide.

The 501(c)-3 Corpse

Next month, we will examine a conversation by letter between a News Patron and a 501(c)-3 pastor, showing the mild set produced through the Masonic seminary system.

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness." Matthew 23:27.

Apathy, commercial covetousness, self-righteousness, 'tolerance,' and anti-nomianism -- are the marks of the government sponsored, regulated, and monitored 501(c)-3 not-for-profit corporations that masquerade as 'The Church.'

Are the 'leaders' of these dead bodies in Law aware that they are following the traditions of the Masonic elders? We believe that they are very much aware, for, if they were following the Law of God, they would not be incorporated under the State.

"What does this have to do with the traditions of the Masonic elders?," you ask. From Jurisprudence of Freemasonry you see by comparison that it has everything to do with the traditions of the Masonic elders!!," to wit:

Landmark Seventh

"The Prerogative of the Grand Master to give Dispensations for opening and holding Lodges is another Landmark. He may grant, in virtue of this, to a sufficient number of Freemasons, the privilege of meeting together and conferring degrees. The Lodges thus established are called "Lodges under Dispensation." They are strictly creatures of the Grand Master, created by his authority, existing only during his will and pleasure, and liable at any moment to be dissolved at his command. They may be continued for a day, a month, or six months; but whatever be the period of their existence, they are indebted for that existence solely to the grace of the Grand Master." Jurisprudence of Freemasonry (1953) by Albert G. Mackey, page 8.

In the case of the 501(c)-3 corporate 'church,' the State is their 'graceful' Grand Master, not Jesus, the Christ.

Their sanctification has its source "in that which defileth a man."

Evidence of this is seen not only in the post-bellum closing of incorporated churches that wouldn't swear an oath to their Grand Master, The President of the United States (see 'The Political History of the U.S during the Great Rebellion,' (1865) by The Clerk of the House of Representatives Edward McPherson, pages 508-554), but also today in such cases as the closing of Pastor Everett Silevin's 501(c)-3 'church,' and so many others too numerous to document here.

These activities are based on the maxim of law, "the source of the right determines the governing law."

In other words, depending on which system of law a church "incorporates" under, determines what rights the pastor, elders, deacons, and members can look to for coverture of their liberty and property.

Thus, a 501(c)3 church cannot claim any of the protections found in Scripture or that are allegedly found in the Constitution of the United States. The reasons why are:

First, as we have shown elsewhere on many occasions, the 501(c)-3 corporation has no Constitutional rights even if the original Constitution was still in full force and effect, because the law of the 501(c)-3 corporation is commercial only! The corporation, its officers, board of directors, and its members have only civil rights, not Constitutional rights.

Thus, as Pastor Sileven found out (the hard way) there is no separation of the church and state when the church incorporates. Therefore, no one in the corporation has any First Amendment Rights!

Second, the instant a church incorporates, it gives up every form of protection due to the church through God's Law and Christian common law.

We know this because "no man can serve two masters" in the first place, and in the second place, to attempt to bring in God's Law and Christian common law into today's courts imports a conflict of law which every judge is bound to resolve in favor of that law over which he has jurisdiction, which is the commercial, statute law.

Third, many believe that one good reason for incorporating the church is to acquire certain benefits, privileges, and immunities which are always available to the church leadership and members.

If this is the case, how was Pastor Siliven arrested, and countless others the media never talks about? Where were their benefits, privileges, and immunities?

Thus, just as the corporations are legal fictions without any substance whatsoever, likewise are the myths of its benefits, privileges, and immunities.

Of course, the nature of these benefits which the church expects to exploit are checking and savings accounts (which any government agency, department, or bureau can seize without a trial), the 'convenient' processing of bequests and grants by private persons (which can also be seized on a whim), and certain other 'conveniences.'

But, the real benefit the 501(c)-3 looks for with incorporation is the ability to borrow large amounts of debt capital, commonly used to build a humongous structure and parking lot that does nothing more than clutter up the landscape.

Now, everyone can be proud of their new edifice, built on debt capital, that also enslaves every man, woman, and child, i.e., every family, whose name appears on the membership roles of the church.

How can this be?

Because every officer and member of the church pledges themselves as surety for the commercial debts of the church, whether they know it or not.

Why is this?

Because the member's name that appears on the church rolls is a beneficiary of the church 'services,' which are also construed as commercial by the government, and not Biblical. Additionally, the 'tax-deductible contributions' are further evidence of the commercial connection to the corporation

Thus, a maxim of law again comes into play here: "He who accepts the benefit must also bear the burden," meaning, if one accepts any benefit of the incorporated church one is also liable for the debts and acts of the church leadership.

If the church is sued and a cash settlement is ordered by the court, there is virtually no limit as to how far the court can extend its power to collect from the members, even if they are not the officers responsible for committing the civil crime.

The ethical problem for the incorporated church from all this commercial activity results in the congregation interpreting what the church does, allegedly through the Bible, though in actuality the Bible has nothing to do with it at any point. And none of the church leadership will ever tell the rank and file members the full extent of the commercial liability, for if they did the brand new church building would soon be empty of its congregation and thus none will be left to foot the bills.

The indebtedness to their Grand Master rules. Can this at all be considered the Christian or Biblical way to do things

Broken Ramparts of Creed and Custom

Interpolated by John Joseph

Please note that interpolations not appearing in the original text are enclosed in "[*]". After reading this excerpt from the book "March of Faith," (1933), pp. 83-99 by Garrison, you will begin to understand why today's "pastors" cannot touch the classical teaching of Romans 13, and why you will have such a difficult time with them, unless you learn the proper Lawful techniques for closing them down.

March of Faith

"When the Congregational National Council met in Boston on June 14, 1865, it listened, we are told, "with profound attention for two full hours" to an opening sermon from the text: "Ask for the old paths." The discourse was "an able and fearless exposition of the influence of the Congregational Church order [*note the "privacy" or separation from Christ's church] in originating and forming our national character and institutions." To the approval of this council also was submitted a statement of Christian faith intended as a bulwark "for the defense of the Word of God now assailed by multiform and dangerous errors which strike at the foundations of our religion [*and state]." Strengthened and enlarged, this statement was adopted as a "Declaration of Apostolic and Primitive Faith and Order.'

This episode at the very beginning of our [*post bellum] period and having to do with a denomination which stood at the forefront in education and culture fairly represents the status of Christian thought in 1865. A large part even of New England conservatism had, to be sure, departed far enough from [*Jonathan Edwards'] Edwardian Calvinism to be viewed as heretical by the right wing, but as we look back on them now, the two seemed to constitute one almost solid body of conservative orthodoxy for the defense of the Gospel against the dangerous heresies of Unitarianism and Universalism [*communism].

But there were already at work certain influences which soon became much more potent than hitherto for the modification both of faith and of conduct. To begin with a bare mention of some of these influences, the first perhaps was the back-wash from the [*Lincoln's] War. In spite of all the work of the Christian commission and the chaplains, in spite of the evangelistic services that had been held in the camps and the part that the churches had played in sanctifying the cause of both contending parties, [*the Christian] religion had lost a good deal of its grip on the country and a good deal of its control over manners and morals as well as over thought.

The increase of immigration was a social phenomenon which had its effects on the moral codes and on religion as well as its economic consequences. Steam transportation across the Atlantic had been inaugurated some years earlier but not until now had the volume of trans-Atlantic travel by steam become impressive. The number of immigrants entering the country in 1865 was less than 250,000. By 1873, the number had almost doubled and it was to double again before the tide reached its full flood. In the decade following the war, the immigrants were still largely English, Irish, and German. The vast majority of the Irish and perhaps a third of the Germans were Roman Catholics. While a large per cent, of the earlier immigrants had passed on through the ports of entry to points west, as the Scandinavians still continued to do, increased opportunities for employment as industrial workers in the new [*militarily licensed] industries now held a larger proportion in the cities. A considerable fraction of the German immigrants, perhaps another third, were Freethinkers who, under the influence of the liberal social and political movements and the Hegelian and post-Hegelian philosophies, had cast off [*the Christian] religion as an outgrown superstition.

At the same time the influence of liberal German thought was making itself felt through the return of American students from their studies abroad. The migration of American students to German universities had already begun before the [*Lincoln's] War, though the stream was a very thin trickle. But before any American university had developed a graduate school of any importance, hundreds of young Americans had gone to Germany and brought back both the methods and the results of German scholarship. The influence of German thought on philosophy and theology soon far surpassed that of either England or France.

Most notable of all, perhaps, was the new position which science began to occupy in the minds of non-scientists. Darwin's Origin of the Species was published in 1859 and the Duke of Argyle's Reign of Law was a new book in 1867. Not less significant than the new ideas which these gave to scientists was the new place that they gave to science in the minds of philosophers and theologians and all who were attempting to construct a [non-Christian] religious view of the world. Taking these influences together, there was enough dynamite in them to blow up the bulwarks of the old order. Not that the old order was necessarily wrong at all points, but its historic position of dominance was challenged, first among the intelligentsia and then in wider circles.

Perhaps Christians of the evangelical tradition were as much shocked by the tendency to give up the old-fashioned observance of Sunday as by any thing. The coming of the "continental Sunday" in place of the Puritan Sabbath was viewed with alarm. The influence of immigrants, the increase of the Roman Catholic populations in the cities and the general loosening of standards after the [*Lincoln's] War, all contributed to the breakdown of the Puritan practice, and the increase of drinking tended to make this breakdown the more odious to many, though the Puritan mind had always been more sensitive about Sunday than about liquor. The spectacle of German communities spending their Sunday evenings in beer gardens--which were often, in fact, pretty respectable places of family resort according to present standards--served as a symbol of moral degeneracy.

Throughout the 'seventies the churches generally were much concerned about this matter of Sabbath observance. The Presbyterian General Assembly had passed a resolution condemning members of that church who were the "responsible" owners or managers of concerns that worked on Sunday. A Mr. Levin, a member of a Presbyterian church in Sewickley, Pennsylvania, chief proprietor of a Pittsburgh paper, was disciplined by the session of his church at the order of the Allegheny presbytery for desecrating the Sabbath. Another Presbyterian, a certain Mr. Groff, who owned a large but not controlling interest in the Chicago Tribune, got by on the ground that since he owned only a minority interest, he was not "responsible." A critic asserted, probably untruly, that that word had been inserted in the Assembly's resolution to protect Deacon Groff and others like him who owned less than a controlling interest in companies which made a profit on the Sabbath. In the 'eighties and thereafter the interest of the church as a whole in this particular item of Christian morality diminished and it tended to become the concern chiefly of one or two minor denominations [*Seventh-Day Adventists] and of a few reformers who specialized on guarding the Sabbath, but the whole church could be aroused from time to time when the issue became conspicuous, as in the question about keeping the Chicago Exposition open on Sundays in 1893. The decision in that case was that the Exposition grounds might be kept open as a park but that the machinery must not run. The changed method of Sunday observance has come to be seen as a phenomenon of urbanization rather more than as a conflict between American and European cultures or between Christian and pagan ideals.

Immigration had another effect besides introducing the continental Sunday and besides reinforcing the Catholic, Lutheran and Freethinking constituencies, while adding little to the strength of the Anglo-Saxon tradition. Liquor began to be a potent factor in politics and the foreign vote was one thing that helped to make it so. In 1873, a brewers journal said that the foreign element, especially the German, was large enough to hold the balance of power between the political parties. "The future is ours. The enormous influx of immigration will in a few years over-reach the puritanical element in every state in the Union." The seven million immigrants who came between 1865 and 1884 went far toward bringing this prophecy to realization.

It was not until some years later, in the last two decades of the nineteenth century and the first of the twentieth, that the liquor interests, grown now to great proportions and combined into immense corporations and closely knit associations, became a really powerful and sinister force in politics. By that time, the foreign element involved had been materially changed and the gentle German and the hilarious Irish were no longer the principal factors. (See Ernest Gordon: When the Brewer Had the Strangle-Hold, New York, 1930.)

There were other forms of iniquity so unsavory that not many nice people cared to soil their hands even by trying to curb them. Nice people, including church people, were willing to have laws passed declaring certain vicious practices to be misdemeanors and to take it for granted that the laws would somehow enforce themselves. But neither these nor the laws for Sunday closing and the regulation of saloons ever did enforce themselves.

Anthony Comstock, the "roundsman of the Lord," was probably the best example for all time of the volunteer agent for the suppression of immorality by legal process. In his youth a salesman for a dry goods house, he was pious with the untroubled devoutness of one who never knew that vexed questions of faith and morals existed. For him there was only white against black, purity versus sin, and down to old age no question vexed his mind except how to enforce the code [*Scripture] about which he had no question. Sunday closing, the suppression of immoral literature, and the enforcement of the liquor laws were the fields in which he specialized. The three were closely interrelated. By 1868, at the age of twenty-four, he had had two sellers of erotic books arrested. In 1871, he was making charges against saloons that kept open on Sunday and against police officers who would not close them. No one ever doubted either his moral or his physical courage. He was a devout believer in the police power as an instrument of righteousness. Arthur Train, who as assistant district attorney in New York knew Comstock for many years, says of him: "He was an enthusiastic smut-sleuth with a hound's nose for obscenity in either art or letters. I suspect that he enjoyed his calling, for he used to gloatingly exhibit with both pride and gusto to myself and other assistants of the district attorney peculiarly atrocious trophies of his various raids in the form of nasty photographs and obscene articles. Quantitatively, his career was a huge success, for he cased to be destroyed 15,000 pounds of [no matter what], over 60,000----------, 5,500----------, 3,000----------, 194,000----------, 134,000----------, and jailed enough sinners to have filled a train of sixty-one coaches, allowing sixty to each coach." (Train, Puritan's Progress, p. 286.)

The changes in religious thought which within the next half century amounted to nothing less than a revolution were the resultant of several influences, some of which have been mentioned above. For a good many years the official declarations of the churches, the utterances of a vast majority of the pulpits and the teachings of practically all the Sunday School teachers showed little deviation from the accepted patterns of orthodoxy. Nevertheless, the old bulwarks were shaken and cracked, not only by attacks from without, but by risings from within. Among the results were a mitigation of the rigors of Calvinism and the complete abandonment of the system by many within churches that had been traditionally Calvinistic; the acceptance of universalism, or quasi-universalism, or some moral equivalent of it, by so many outside of the Universalist denomination that the denomination itself reaped very little benefit from the diminished prestige of Hell; the application of scientific methods to the study of the history of religion with an accompanying decrease of emphasis upon the supernatural; the acceptance of the concept of evolution and its application in the field of religion [*and as a consequence in the laws of the state]; a changed view of religious authority growing out of the view of the Bible resulting from critical methods of study; and the substitution of educational for revivalistic methods by the church in dealing with its own young people.

Horace Bushnell, of Hartford, Connecticut, had started a new trend of thought with his Christian Nurture, revised and re-published in 1861. Unitarianism had, to be sure, long ago challenged the conception of original sin, human depravity, and miraculous regeneration, but it had challenged so many other things besides that its arguments carried little weight in orthodox circles. Bushnell was a Congregational minister of high repute, working in the very center of orthodoxy for Hanford Seminary, which had been established in 1834 because Yale was not orthodox enough. Revivalism in the period before the Civil War [*Lincoln's War], as well as in the period immediately after, and to a great extent down to now, was based on the assumption that the normal process of conversion involves a violent internal revolution and a sudden change in the nature, status, and character of the convert. The gist of Bushnell's teaching was that the child in a Christian community and a Christian home ought to develop naturally into a Christian without realizing that he has ever been any thing else, and without any shattering emotional experience of conversion. The implications of this humane idea were these: First, it laid stress upon the responsibility of the church and the home for Christian education, and gave a rational basis for that work of religious education which had already started in the Sunday School movement. Second, it intensified and rationalized the opposition to the revivalistic method of conversion, especially as applied to the young. While the great revivalists like Finney and Moody had had their most most spectacular success in winning sinners who obviously were sinners, the popular churches had come to rely very largely upon revivals as a means of harvesting the young who grew up within these and never became prodigals. The tendency was to treat all persons, young and old, who were not formally enrolled in the church as though they were prodigal sons. And third, it affected theological thought by stressing the moral in contrast to the substitutionary theory of the atonement, and by introducing a certain naturalism into the whole religious process. The fact that Bushnell was rated by many as a heretic and that his own church, in standing by him, was finally moved to withdraw from the Congregational consociation to which it had belonged, probably increased rather than diminished his influence in the long run, and he continued until 1876 to be a potent and beneficent influence upon the thinking and practice of the church. The views held by Bushnell and delivered by him to a local congregation and to the ministers who read his book were popularized by Beecher, who had the nation for his audience, and by other liberal-minded thinkers and writers who commanded smaller constituencies.

Through the 'seventies there was a good deal of preaching about future punishment, both pro and con, but mostly pro [*Future punishment does not exist unless taught in the context of sound Christian doctrine, and not Masonic dogma.] "The question of future punishment has been a favorite topic in the New York and Brooklyn pulpits for two or three Sundays past..." (Independent, January 17, 1878). Doctor Talmage was strong for hell. Rev. E. C. Sweetzer, Universalist, was naturally against it. Rev. Carlos Martyn, Dutch Reformed, Dr. R. S. MacArthur and Halsey W. Knapp, Baptists, and Doctors Hatfield and Finn, Methodists, all expressed faith in the orthodox view of eternal punishment. [*These all miss the mark--Faith is in Christ Jesus alone and not the consequences of unbelief. Proceed with Christ Jesus as the starting point, and not as a result of faith.]

In 1879, the Congregationalist (Boston) "does not see how any one can honestly belong to the denomination and not believe in eternal punishment." The editor of the Independent (undenominational by this time) believes in the doctrine but does not consider it an essential of Christian faith. Lyman Abbott, in the Christian Union, argues for conditional immortality. "Man is mortal and must put on immortality"--but he does not dogmatize. He considers that hell has ceased to be a live issue. Later he adds: "Belief in future punishment is growing more universal" with the understanding of the inexorable operation of law, but "belief in any definition of future punishment less so." The term, "the new theology," though it really meant much more, was sometimes used in a specific sense to refer to such view about punishment--that the only real hell is the one which a man creates for himself as the natural consequence of his evil deeds. While the great body of the ministry was still untouched by this idea, it had to be recognized as a Christian belief within the church and not as a form of infidelity [*See 2 Cor 11:14]. There were some who saw that, while the question of the future state occupied the center of the theological stage at the moment, another more important would soon take its place--that of the canon and inspiration of scripture. But even before the existence of a new view of the Bible became a matter of common knowledge, evolution began to make its impress upon religious thinkers and soon the welkin rang with the sound of the battle for and against it.

Darwin's Origin of Species, published in 1859, made little immediate impression upon the American mind outside of scientific circles--though I find a record that young John Thomas Gulick, son of a missionary in Hawaii and himself later almost equally eminent as a missionary in Japan and as a contributor to scientific evolution through his own studies in zoology, read The Origin of Species in the year of its publication, while he was yet a student in Union Theological Seminary in New York. An American edition was soon published. Evolution came more vividly to the knowledge of Americans through the medium of Herbert Spencer's writings, which circulated more widely in the United States than in England. In 1865, E. L. Youmans raised $7,000 to assist in financing the publication of Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. Darwin's Descent of Man, published in 1871, made clear even to the non-scientific mind the implications of his earlier work. John Fiske delivered, in 1869 and 1871, the lectures which, later published as Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy, attained a popularity which even that heavy title could not prevent. Conservative Boston would not allow the "agnostic Fiske" --who later turned out to be a rather ardent Christian evolutionist--to deliver the Lowell lectures until many years later.

A new phase in the long warfare of science with theology began promptly and vigorously. Harvard and Cornell were almost the only institutions of learning in which the new idea got even a fair hearing, and Presidents Eliot and White became targets for the orthodox. Tyndall made a lecture tour in America in 1872 and 1873; Spencer in 1872; Huxley in 1876. By that time the more popular and theistic interpretation of evolution by John Fiske had done much to assure the more liberal Christians that evolution was not incompatible with theism. When Drummond came a little later and toured the country with Moody, he seemed to demonstrate that it was compatible also with fervent evangelical Christianity. But meanwhile, also, J. W. Draper, a chemist by profession, who had already written a history of the intellectual development of Europe exhibiting the clergy to rather poor advantage, published in 1874 his Warfare of Science and Religion, which served as a standard text on that subject from the standpoint of the left wing until Andrew D. White's work in the same field in 1896.

The last quarter of the nineteenth century produced many and varied interpretations of evolution in its relation to philosophy of life and of the world, many types of anti-theistic theories based upon it, and many modes of reconciling evolution and Christianity. The extremes were occupied by the persistently skeptical Huxley and the persistently evangelical evolutionist Drummond. Huxley's visit was especially disturbing to the conservatives, and the more so since it appeared that he furnished much of the material out of which the famous infidel Robert G. Ingersoll forged the weapons for his attack upon Christianity, very much as Voltaire had furnished material for Tom Paine.

It began to be suggested that Christian students might profitably suspend their studies of the dead languages for a time and concentrate upon the living sciences so that they might be able to meet the unbelievers on their own ground [*Why? To do so grants recognition of the philosophy and argument of the unbeliever. This is contrary to sound basic principles of warfare.]; and also that the scientists who rejected Christianity as incompatible with evolution might be reasonably asked to familiarize themselves with the rudiments of the system which they attacked. [*This is such utter nonsense. Why step down into the mire of the wicked? Is the finite brain of Darwin greater than the Infinite Mind of God? Is the creature ever greater than the Creator?] Charles Hodge, whose reputation and prestige were great, but whose work soon ceased to be read outside of a limited circle of students in the most conservative theological seminaries, declared that "a more absolutely incredible theory (than evolution) was never propounded for acceptance among men." Mark Hopkins, ex-president of Williams--and ex-occupant of that famous pedagogical position on the end of a log with the youthful Garfield on the other--delivered a course of lectures at Princeton Seminary, the first of which was devoted to denouncing evolution as "essentially atheistic." But James McCosh, the president of Princeton, found it possible to think of evolution as God's method of continuing His creative work. [*How can this be for it impugns the immutability of God and His Testimony.] Dr. William Hayes Ward published the discovery that Dr. Taylor Lewis, anticipating Darwin, had declared, in 1855, that the "Miltonic [*John Milton] theory" of the sudden creation of each separate species was not scriptural and therefore not true. "Species grow out of species as individuals out of individuals."

Beecher's powerful influence was on the side of the modernists,. After preaching a liberal sermon in Chicago he received many anxious inquiries as to whether he really meant what he seemed to mean. In reply, he wrote: "I am a cordial Christian evolutionist" (Christian Union, August 2, 1883). Lyman Abbott, Beecher's great successor both in the pulpit and in the editorial chair, was early added to the list of Christian evolutionists, and his actual direct influence on Christian thought was perhaps greater than that of any of the others. Henry Drummond's The Natural Law in the Spiritual World (1883), pointed out one line of reconciliation with persuasive simplicity. Not only the more liberal theologians, but many of the scientists, insisted upon the compatibility of the new findings of science with all that was valuable in the old faith. [*Note 2 Cor 6:14-18.] Christian members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, interviewed at the 1884 meeting of the Association, declared their faith increased; and the reporter refers to a young infidel who began the study of geology to get arguments against God and the Bible, but found that "the agreement between Genesis and geology demonstrated the divine origin of the Bible" (Christian Union, September 18, 1884)--an episode which illustrates a transitional stage in the wrestle of religion with scientific truth before the processes and results of Biblical criticism had become widely known. The Genesis-and-geology discussion, of course, preceded the evolution controversy. Hugh Miller, who was a stone-mason before he became a geologist, had attempted to bring that to an orthodox conclusion with his Footprints of the Creator (1849), and Testimony of the Rocks (1857), but the question refused to stay closed.

If evolution did not win all the theologians, neither did it at once win all the scientists. Agassiz opposed it to the end of his life, and it was only as a new generation of scientists came on, trained under the influence of the new doctrine, that opposition came to be found almost exclusively in the ranks of the conservative theologians and the untutored laity. Through the 'eighties there was an almost constant discussion in liberal pulpits and papers of "the old and the new'--the new meaning, for the most part, evolution and the more recent discoveries in geology. The great names among the religious leaders who championed the "new" must not be allowed to conceal the fact that the vast body both of the ministry and of the working church members stood fast by the "old." The net result, however, was that the more intelligent, whether in the churches or out of them, found it generally impossible to maintain the simple cosmology and anthropology of Milton, and Christians with any pretensions to scholarship found it unnecessary to try to do so.

The first stage in the new era of science put the Christian apologists in the somewhat difficult position of having to defend religious concepts which were themselves about to undergo change through the application of scientific methods to the study of the documents upon which they were based. The results of the work of German Biblical scholarship began slowly to filter in and the study of the Bible by new methods, which treated it as a collection of literature whose date, authorship, and character were to be investigated critically, rather than as a book known in advance as the inerrant product of inspiration, presently found a place in the more liberal seminaries and a lodgment in the minds of many of the ministry. As good a statement as can be found any where of the entire course of the changing attitude towards the Bible is that given by William Newton Clarke in his Sixty Years with the Bible, in which he narrates autobiographically the development of his own views through six decades.

At the beginning of our period, such a statement as the following is fairly typical of what was considered a sound position: "We could say beforehand, if we have a revelation at all, it must be infallible for if not, the lie will ruin us before the truth can save us" (Rev. George B. Cheever, in the Independent, January 6, 1870). But in 1876, a minister of the Reformed Church could write in Scribner's Magazine on what he called "Protestant Vaticanism," inveighing against the suicidal folly of those church leaders who would suppress the doubts and queries of advanced Christian thinkers urging that the creed should be revised, and arguing that the new creed should not require faith in the whole Bible. Two years later, Professor Toy writes in the Sunday School Times of Deuteronomy as a late compilation. A Scottish professor was at that very moment on trial for heresy for saying no more than that, but the American churches did not yet know enough of higher criticism to be sensitive on the point. It should be noted that the important works of Wellhausen, who did more than any other German scholar to make the concept of higher criticism familiar to the American mind, and its very name a household word, were published in 1876 and 1878.

There were struggles over orthodoxy on Biblical interpretations at Andover Seminary (Congregational) in 1881 and at Newton Seminary (Baptist) in 1882. At Newton the conservative president, Hovey, undertook to oust the professor of New Testament Greek, Gould, a Biblical scholar of the new school--and did, by a trustees' vote of thirteen to nine. The publication of Professor Charles A. Briggs' Biblical Study: Its Principals, Methods, and History, in 1883, was the most important landmark in American Biblical scholarship for this period. It covered the whole field and stated the whole cause for the liberal side, but the conservative leaders were too busy fighting evolution just then to make an issue of Professor Briggs' views on the Bible, and he was not seriously molested until 1893, when he was made the defendant in a great heresy trial, the inevitable result of which he avoided by leaving the Presbyterian church for the Episcopalian [*Anglican].

Among the great liberalizing personalities in the pulpit in this period, and outside of the ranks of technical scholarship, four were perhaps preeminent. They were Henry Ward Beecher, Washington Gladden, Phillips Brooks, and George A. Gordon. Of these, Beecher was the most popular, the least scholarly, and the most pronounced in his advocacy of the new positions. He was a temperamental liberal before he was a theological liberal. In the North American Review for August, 1882, he summarized his view of the recent progress of his own views. The course of thought, he says, is not away from religion in America; religious sentiment was never so strong and active as now; but there is "a more diffused religion," less sectarian spirit, more liberty of thought. There is a transition in theology and a gradual substitution of a "theology of evolutionism" for Calvinism. Naturally, there is resistance from the old guard. These changes Beecher wholly approves. The Watchman and Reflector commented that with this article Beecher "has emphatically stepped down and out from any relation with Congregational authority. He definitely renounces the supreme authority of the Bible." At a meeting of the Congregational association of New York and Brooklyn on October 11, 1882, Beecher made a great affirmative statement of his faith and then resigned from the association. The association passed almost unanimously a resolution that his statement "indicates the propriety of his membership in this or any other Congregational association" and asked him to reconsider his resignation. But he did not. He continued for the remaining five years of his life, without personal denominational connection, though minister of a Congregational church (Christian Union, October 19, 1882).

(to be continued next month)

Indifference, Insensibility, Apathy

Indifference signifies no difference; that is, having no difference of feeling for one thing more than another. Insensibility, from sense and able, signifies incapable of feeling. Apathy, from the Greek primitive a and paqoz, feeling, implies without feeling.

Indifference is a partial state of the mind; insensibility and apathy are general states of the mind; he who has indifference is not to be awakened to feeling by some objects, though he may by others; but he who has not sensibility is incapable of feeling; and he who has apathy is without any feeling. Indifference is mostly a temporary state; insensibility is either a temporary or permanent state; apathy is always a permanent state: indifference is either produced or natural; apathy is natural. A person may be in a state of indifference about a thing the value of which he is not aware of, or acquire an indifference for that which he knows to be of comparatively little value: he may be in a state of insensibility from some lethargic torpor which has seized his mind; or he may have a habitual insensibility arising either from the contractedness of his powers, or the physical bluntness of his understanding and deadness of his passions; his apathy is born with him, and forms a prominent feature in the constitution of his mind. Crabb's English Synonymes (1890), pages 542-543.

Remembering the Old Ways reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

The Bible, says Bonnet, in his meditations on the Lord's Prayer, insists much upon this comparison of an earthly father, and our Father in Heaven; and it challenges the tenderest affections of a parent's heart to surpass in any respect the love and care of our Heavenly Father. "What man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye, then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven, give good things to them that ask Him" Does a suffering or an erring child meet with assistance or compassion from his father? "Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear Him."

Our Father in Heaven

The Bible does not stop even here; the experience of the Christian contains still richer treasures of consolation. If there be found a father so unnatural as to abandon his own child, or if death, striking a beloved father, leave his child an unprotected orphan, the arms of a heavenly Father are stretched out to receive him, to surround him with love and paternal care: "When my father and mother forsake me, the Lord will take me up." And this assurance, which David had found so blessed a reality, when he pronounced these words, is the same to every soul whose confidence is in the Lord. Yes, I seen the young child returning sad and dejected, after accompanying its father to the tomb, and have heard it asked in the agony of grief-- "Who will now be my guide and my support, in this life of misery, upon which I am about to enter, alone, and poor, weak, and without hope?" And then, I have seen the hand of a faithful servant of God pointing upwards, while with accents of tenderness and sympathy he said-- "My child! remember that thou hast still a Father in Heaven;" and these words, these few words, found the way to that young heart, and never after departed from it; and these few words gave a direction to his whole future life by shedding over it a new light.

Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton was determined to see that the people involved in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln were punished swiftly and severely. To this end, even though the civil courts of Washington, D.C., were fully functional and available, Stanton arranged for the eight 'conspirators' to be tried in a military court and for the verdict to be determined by a nine-member commission that he hand-picked. The commissioners set their own rules of procedure and determined that a two-thirds vote, instead of the customary unanimous decision, would be sufficient to convict.

Military Justice?

It was not until the second day of their trial that they learned what charges they faced, and then two days after that before they were all supplied with defense attorneys.

April 19th

April 19, 1775: "Liberty Day." 'The shot heard 'round the world' fired at Lexington. Result: the first battle deaths in 'The War for Christian Liberty.'

April 19, 1861: Baltimore, Maryland. The scene of the first bloodshed of Lincoln's War. Lincoln's troops opened fire on a group of civilians. 16 deaths result before the troops are whisked away on a train.

April 19, 1994: multiple deaths, including 17 children, as federal troops set fire to the Branch Davidian church, Waco, Texas.

April 19, 1996: multiple deaths in terrorist bombing of federal building at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

And the war rages on!!!

Lawyers... and other reptiles

Origin of the Specious...

"I think we may class the lawyer in the natural history of the monsters." John Keats (1795-1821), English poet.

"In 1560, there was one attorney for every 20,000 people in England; in 1606, there was one for every 4,000; and in 1640, one for every 2,500. No statistics recorded a proportionate increase in justice." C.W. Brooks, Pettyfoggers and Vipers of the Commonwealth, page 112.

Where's the Justice?...

Medieval Spanish Proverb...

"The Jews ruin themselves at the Passover, the Moors at their marriages, and the Christians in their lawsuits." cited in 'Racial Proverbs' by Champion, p 303.

"Poor people have access to American courts in the same sense that the Christians had access to the lions when they were dragged into a Roman arena." Judge Earl Johnson Jr., quoted in The L. A. Times, Feb. 19, 1984.

Courts of what?...

"Virtue in the middle," said the Devil, as he sat down between two lawyers.

Virtue?...

"May your life be filled with lawyers."

Ancient Curse

The United States is home to two-thirds of the world's lawyers.

Ugh! It is!!

The Last Name

A last, or family name is that which belongs to your family. It existed long before you were born, therefore it is not you and it does not describe you. It describes your relationship to a linage for historical purposes. It is not a 'God Given Name,' but a name designated by your family relating, usually, to a previous craft or commercial profession. In short, it is considered a 'legal fiction' in man's law. It does not describe, attach to, or have anything to do with the 'New Man' or 'New Woman' in Christ. "For whosoever shall do the will of My Father which is in heaven, the same is My brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:50.

Your only linage that is important 'in Law' is that relating to our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ. That is not to say that your family is not, or should not be, important to you. But it is 'man's law' that makes these distinctions important. They look to earthly connections to attach 'legal personality' to you. It is the legal fiction known as 'legal personality' that we must always seek to avoid.

The same precepts apply to the 'birth date,' 'birth place,' 'residence,' 'ownership,' etc.

These are the marks of 'the old man' of the world, better known as 'a human being' or 'son of Adam.'

Issue the Twenty-eighth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

The Modern Gospels, Part Two...

Greg Loren Durand...

Fictions of law, Part Four ...

Posting the Land...

Conversations with a 501(c)-3 Corpse...

The King's Men on Truth Radio...

Broken Ramparts, conclusion...

Bits and Pieces...

Etymologicum Anglicanum ...

The Modern Gospel Versions

Written and Compiled by The King's Men

One of the great short-comings in the average Christian's education is, they do not know the history of the Bible they all carry to church and Sunday school. But, even worse, the history of the Christian Bible is not a subject that many seem to care about. Yet, the history of any text or version of Scripture is absolutely vital if one really wants to know whether or not the version he reads or studies - is reliable!

Thus, we offer this short history of the Bible in English to help Our Readers decide if their current version is a good one, and to show why the King's Men all over the country - with one voice - prefer the Authorized, or King James Version, to all others. Our history begins with the work of John Wycliffe.

John Wycliffe (1320-84) had one goal in his life; to translate the Bible into the language of the English people, so that the common man could read the Scriptures for himself. Prior to this, the Scripture was printed only in the language of scholars, i.e., Latin, Greek, or Hebrew. Wycliffe wanted a Bible in common English so the people would know when anyone tampered with the meaning of the text, and the people would see that even kings are subject to the Law of God. He finished his work just two years before he died, in 1382. From this date, the Protestant Reformation began, and this is why Wycliffe is known as "The Morning Star of the Reformation."

Wycliffe's translation was based upon the Latin version of the Bible. Six years after Wycliffe's version was published, a revision of it was published (1388) and known as the Purvey Revision. Twenty years later, the popularity of the Bible in English was so great that it alarmed the powers that be. Thus, the Provincial Council at Oxford prohibited English translations of the Bible in 1408. Violations of the prohibition resulted in excommunication from the church, a trial for heresy, and often death.

William Tyndale (1492-1536), graduated from Oxford with a B.A. in 1512, and an M.A. in 1515. Later, he studied at Cambridge and became a tutor, during which time, he translated Erasmus's Enchiridion Militis Christiani, "The Christian Soldiers Handbook." One of its themes was, Christians are personally responsible to study the New Testament and deem the Bible the final authority for all matters of life and doctrine. Tyndale said to a friend: "If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plough should know more of the Scripture than thou dost."

Tyndale set out to translate the Scripture into English, but the Oxford Prohibition was still in effect. He sought a special permission to translate the Bible from the Bishop of London, who refused. A wealthy merchant agreed to support his work and Tyndale left England in 1524 to begin the task. He finished the New Testament in Germany in 1525, but, the government prohibited its publication. He moved to Worms where a new edition was published in 1526. By 1536 he had translated and published the whole Bible.

Both his translation idiom and his scholarship were so outstanding that, to this day, Tyndale's work has influenced the translation of every Bible in English. His translation was unique in that it did not rely on the Latin, but on the Greek and Hebrew texts of Scripture.

By 1534, English kings and ecclesiastics began to feel the heat of Wycliffe's and Tyndale's work. Archbishop Thomas Cranmer petitioned Henry VIII to form a committee to translate the Bible into the common tongue.

Miles Coverdale, who was not a scholar of the same class as Tyndale, and not an 'official' translators, did a new translation in 1535. His Bible was based on the Latin and Tyndale, and it was the first complete Bible in English printed in England. It was first to introduce chapter summaries at the head of chapters, and to separate Apochryphal Books from the Biblical text and put them after the Old Testament.

A translation by Thomas Matthew, based on Tyndale's work, was published in 1537, under "the King's most gracious license." It was the first to offer "aids" to study, that included a church calendar, an exhortation to Bible study, a summary of the main doctrines of the Bible, and a concordance. These ideas were borrowed from French Bible translators Lefevre (1534) and Olivetan (1535). It also used notes to understand the text taken from Tyndale, Lefevre, and Olivetan. By 1537, the Bible in English circulated freely in England, one hundred fifty years after Wycliffe's death.

Coverdale revised the Matthew translation using many excellent source materials. This version was known as The Great Bible. It was printed without notes or "aids" in Paris in 1538, but Roman Catholic authorities in the Inquisition seized all the copies they could lay their hands on. The printer returned to England where the Bible was finally published in 1539.

In 1540 a revision of The Great Bible was published with a preface by Archbishop Cranmer, and included the phrase: "This is the Bible appointed for use in the churches." In 1546, Henry forbid the use of the Tyndale Bible and all other annotated versions of the bible with notes in English.

When Mary, Queen of Scots, came to the English throne, the leaders of English Protestants and their Bibles fled or were executed. Those who fled, settled in English colonies in Germany and Switzerland. Anthony Gilbey and Christopher Goodman, the principal translators of the Geneva Bible were part of the group that settled at Basel, Switzerland.

For a time, there was a concerted effort to bring all the English exiles together in one city in Germany or Switzerland, but this effort failed. At Geneva was where the brilliant John Calvin and several Englishmen settled, and after a time, formed a church with John Knox, William Williams, William Whittington, Gilbey, and Goodman. They used Calvin's Order of Service rather than the English prayer book, and were influenced not only by Calvin, but by Beza and others in Calvin's circle of friends. At this time, Geneva was a center of Biblical scholarship and thus, when it came to the translation of the Bible there was no lack of men or scholarship. It was in Geneva that the first edition of the Greek New Testament with a verse number system was published in 1551.

Nine years later, the Geneva Bible was published in 1560, and in five years it became the most popular Bible in England in spite of the official sanctions against it. The Geneva Bible was assembled by the very same English exiles that Mary ran out of England. It is largely due to her efforts that so much Biblical talent and scholarship were concentrated in Geneva at one time. Before the King James version was published, the Geneva Bible went through more editions in England than all other Bibles combined! It continued to sell long after the King James was published.

The only problem with the English translation found in the Geneva Bible was its marginal notes and references. These made Queen Elizabeth I and especially her son James I, nervous. Thus, after James became king he informed all at the Hampton Roads Conference in 1604, that a new translation was due, - without the marginal notes and explanations of texts.

The Authorized Version, or more popularly, the King James Version, was translated by a group of the finest scholars of the age. It relies for about 61% of its wording on previous versions mentioned above and about 39% is new wording or translation, and it was published in 1611.

The KJV has been called one of the greatest translations ever. From 1611 to 1881, it stood the test of time, scholarship, and criticism, which was often intense. Not until the The Revised Standard Version (RSV), was there any consideration of replacing the King James.

The KJV was the most supported translation in history, not only in translation tools, concordances, dictionaries, and commentaries, but also in tools to integrate the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic with the King James. Today, there are about forty words in the KJV whose meaning no longer means what it did in 1611, but the work is still the best translation of the Bible in English, in spite of all the so-called 'new' translations that appeared to compete with it. The KJV was even given the sanction of Congress, when it bought thousands of copies for the American people.

Recently, a group of so-called patriots published a criticism of the KJV which cited not one textual scholar of any note. They even resorted to lifting fragments of "King James I," a history by Otto J. Scott, to blast the character of King James. When Mr. Scott saw this work, he was enraged at the treatment of his history of King James.

The contention of the patriots was, that the Geneva Bible is better than the KJV because King James allegedly tampered with its translation. In fact, this is a flat lie. As corrupt as James was, he never went near the translation committee for the simple reason that if any pastor in England had heard that James was influencing the translation, the KJV would never have been placed in a single church in England!!!

Of course, these patriot groups were lying about the KJV because they just happened to be selling the Geneva Bible.

We come now to the plethora of new translations of the Bible beginning with the Revised Standard Version of 1881. This work was also translated by a committee of scholars and their task was supposed to be only a modernization of the English in the KJV. In fact, under the domination of Westcott and Hort, the version that was produced was a completely new translation based upon recently discovered Greek and Hebrew texts. For the story of how this came about, we must go back a few years.

It seems that a certain Count Lobegott Friedrich Konstantin von Tischendorff (1815-1874), a New Testament textual critic went to Judea in 1844 and found at St. Catherine's Monastery on Mount Sinai that monks were using pages from a book to start a fire. The un-used pages went back into a waste basket. The Count recognized the writing on the pages as parts of the New Testament in Greek. He took all he could find and returned to Europe. He kept the location of his find a secret during the excitement that followed his discovery. In 1853 and 1859 he went back to Judea under the sponsorship of the Russian Czar and collected many more texts. This text became known as the Codex Sinaiticus. The world was astonished at Tischendorff's find and the Czar gave him the title of "Count." Later, another text with the same style was found in the Vatican, hence its name, Codex Vaticanus.

Next month, we will take a close look at the true origins of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus to further demonstrate the folly of the today's Modern copyrighted Translations.

Greg Loren Durand

Author of "The Five Points of Christianity" 219 pages, Crown Rights Book Company

Preface to

"The Five Points of Christianity"

I am a recent convert to Christianity. Yes, I have been a believer in Jesus Christ for a little over a decade now, but the "gospel" that I had spent the majority of my Christian walk believing to be true was, at best, only half true, and at some very crucial points, totally wrong. I was spiritually "nurtured" in an environment where the biblical doctrine of God's absolute sovereignty in salvation was not only never taught, but the discussion of it was actually discouraged and often even forbidden. In short, I was raised an Arminian.

I was to later realize that Arminianism, though claiming to be Protestantism, has much more in common with the false teachings that initiated the Protestant Reformation in the first place. Granted, the subject of God's grace is commonly proclaimed from the Arminian pulpit, but the definition which it is given really denies its very essence and majesty. This denial is implicit in the claim that man plays some role, though it be ever so minute, in the process of salvation. The counter-statement of Calvinism, which I now accept, is simply that salvation is of the Lord. It is the sovereign grace of God in and of itself that does not merely entreat or "woo," but actually saves, those who, without such grace, would never be saved or even see their need of salvation. In the words of John Calvin, "Men come to God empty-handed."

Contrary to what I had formerly assumed, there is room for neither ecumenical dialogue nor "agreeable disagreement" between Calvinists and Arminians, for the differences between the two camps go far beyond the scope of reconciliation. The two theologies are, in fact, no less than opposing belief systems-- the former a preservation of God's truth, the latter a perversion thereof. The great evangelist Charles Spurgeon was absolutely correct when he declared Calvinism to be nothing less than the biblical Gospel.

It is to be expected that some will, at this point, voice their objections and attempt to affix the label of "imbalance" and "legalism" to this position. In response, I must insist that any compromise of the clear teachings of the Scripture can in no way be seen as "balance," but as apostate, heretical, and abominable in the sight of God. Likewise, the accusation of legalism is completely unfounded, though unfortunately nothing new. John Calvin himself was once condemned for "judaizing" in a 1593 tract published by the theological faculty at Wittenburg. This was because he insisted on allowing Scripture the opportunity to speak for itself, thus depriving the unlearned of their fanciful methods of proof-texting beliefs that had no real biblical foundation. Ironically, the entire Reformation was ignited by a rejection of the legalism of the Roman Catholic church, which had all but obliterated the grace of God beneath layers of man-made dogmas.

I believe that the predominantly Arminian church of today is a rather anemic caricature of that mighty fortress established by Jesus Christ and His Apostles in the first century. No longer does the prevailing message of modern evangelism "cut to the heart" of its hearers, nor does it exact the commitment to the precepts of God's Word that it once did. People are now led to believe in a God that knocks quietly and pathetically on the door of their hearts, passively hoping for the opportunity to bless them. Sinners are encouraged to focus on their supposed inherent self-worth and are presented with the cross as a means to elevate their downtrodden self-esteem. It is not surprising that this modern "gospel" proven to be a failure, simply because it appeals to the "good in men"-- an attribute that the Bible says does not even exist.

Today's church cultivates an overall religious atmosphere that builds crystal cathedrals and promises health and wealth, and yet leaves Christians weak in faith and untaught in sound doctrine. It is therefore my conviction that Arminianism is the modern-day Wittenburg Cathedral, to which the biblical Gospel must once again be nailed for all to see. As in Martin Luther's day, the offence of the ignorant and the obstinate is inevitable, but such should never deter the minister of God's Word from rendering faithful service to his Lord. It is time to restore the tradition of the Reformers to our pulpits and join in their cry of soli Deo gloria. Then, and only then, will the Body of Christ once again begin to witness a true "grace awakening."

Other books by Greg Loren Durand

In God We Trust? The Deadly Cancer of the "Health and Wealth Gospel"

De Legis et Gubernatis

The Christian's Duty to the Civil Magistrate

The God Who Isn't There: Examining the Process Theology of Modern Arminian Scholars

"Communion with the Gods" The Pagan Alter of Freemasonry

For a complete price listing of these and other available titles, write to:

Crown Rights Book Company
c/o Post Office Box 769
Wiggins, Mississippi C.S.A. [39577]

Website: http://members.aol.com/crwnrts/resource.htm

------------------------------

The Battle Hymn of the Christian Republic

by Greg Loren Durand

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the presence of the Lord
In the hearts of brave and upright men, not chariot or sword
In Jesus let our treasures be, in honor our reward
For God shall have His day.

The heathen plot together now to fight against God's Name
Against the Lord's Anointed One to overthrow His fame
"Let us burst Their bands asunder"; God will mock them to their shame
And He shall have His day.

Though kings of earth devise their plans, God turns them to His will
The wicked shall not prosper, though righteous blood they spill
Force may crush the truth to earth, but truth remaineth still
Our God shall have His day.

The Cause of freedom is to us like fire in our veins
We won't retire from the fight while tyranny remains
Let us serve our Holy King, repeating this refrain
Our God shall have His day.

So let us laud our leaders Jackson, Stuart, Davis, Lee
And honor those our brothers dear who died for liberty
Let us quit ourselves now like men, rememb'ring constantly
Our God shall have His day.

If Truth has been our mantle, and to Christ we've bowed our knee
We shall not fear as others do, to face eternity
Let us cross the river Jordan and then rest beneath the tree
Our God has had His day.

Inversion of The Law by Fictions of law-

Part Four

by Randy Lee

Fictions of law are the direct result of the humanistic intellectualism of the law, and the resulting inversion thereof. That is, those who put The Word of God behind them, and instead look only to the wasteland of their autonomous 'human reason' for defining what law is, or what it should be, end up with the 'necessity' for legal fictions. As L.L. Fuller stated in 1930:

"...the fiction is the cement which is always at hand to plaster together the weak spots in our intellectual structure." 25 Illinois Law Review, 'Legal Fictions' page 515, Dec. 1930 by Univ. of Ill. Law Professor L. L. Fuller.

The legal fiction is the humanist tool used for the inversion of law and truth:

Inversion. Change of order, so that the last becomes first and the first last; a turning or change of the natural order of things. Change of places, so that each takes the place of the other. Webster's 1828 Dictionary

The Roman Catholic, 33rd Degree Mason and devotee of self-will, Roscoe Pound, who was Dean of Harvard Law School during the first half of the 20th century fully disclosed in 1959 how the fictions is used for the inversion of The Law under the guise of 'administering justice':

"It may be that some rule of law is still held in part or more or less, sacred. The law may not have passed out of a religious or semi-religious stage. Or it may be that the rule has a specially solemn form, such as a law of the XII Tables, having been incorporated in a permanent memorial of the settled customs of the community. Or, without coming under either of these heads, a rule or a body of rules may be protected against change by a widespread fear of return to a condition of justice without law still remembered with dread. Probably the hostility of American states toward equity was chiefly due to memory of the highhanded administrative tribunals of the Tudors and Stuarts. In any of these cases a tribunal will feel that a rule cannot be changed avowedly and consciously. It will persuade itself that it is making no change. Where the circumstances of 'administrating justice' require a change, the change will come indirectly and almost unconsciously in the form of a fiction." 'Jurisprudence' (1959) by Roscoe Pound, Volume III, pages 461 &462.

In the same Volume he clearly demonstrates how the legal fiction has been used, for instance, by Marxist's to subvert The Christian Common Law in America, by replacing it with their 'brand' of equity, administrative law, judge-made law, and other ungodly ilk of like kind:

"In a period of growth, when ideas are few and crude, they [fictions] enable a body of law to be molded gradually, without legislative action, to meet immediate wants as they arise and to conform to the end of the law. Legislative overhauling of the legal system is neither possible nor desirable in such period. It demands a thorough understanding of the old law, the mischief and the remedy and a stock of systematic legal ideas beyond the archaic legal order. In a sense they were devised to conceal the substance when the substance was not yet regarded as of legal consequence. They may operate still to conceal the substance after later ideas have made the substance almost the only thing of legal consequence.
The other cause operating to produce fictions, namely, poverty of general ideas in the times and places in which fictions arise, is connected with the development of juristic thinking. For a long time men do not so much reason as they associate. They are moved by association of this or that which is new with this or that with which they are familiar. Thus when a new political community was set up in antiquity it was founded on the model of a group of kindred. When a political organization of a society is set up today it is made to the model of the Middle Ages. Its legislative organ is made up of representatives of localities. In a city council there are representatives of wards. In the state legislature there is a territorial basis. There are representatives of soil more than of persons. So when changed circumstances and pressure of unrecognized or inadequately secured interests compel changed rules of law or new rules, men are not equal to the working out of a new legal doctrine, or of any legal doctrine, but endeavor to assimilate the new phenomenon in the administration of justice to something which they are familiar. Thus, in a sense, it might be said that dogmatic fictions represent first attempts of a legal system at classification and generalization." 'Jurisprudence' (1959) by Roscoe Pound, Volume III, pages 465 &466.

Earlier in his State-promoting and Law-inverting career, Roscoe Pound in 1936 showed the true colors of his 'unlimited' Marxist/humanist/Masonic thought, when addressing 150 professors, lawyers, and judges at Harvard's 'Conference on the Future of the Common Law':

"In the Psalm De Profundis, as it stands in the Vulgate, differing from the text with which we are familiar in King James's version, the psalmist cries out, in a noble passage, propter legem tuam sustinui te Domine --because of thy law have I abided thee, O Lord. The regularity of the operations of nature, as compared with the willfulness and inconsistency of human behavior; the steadfastness and predictability of the moral order, as compared with the want of principle and untrustworthiness of the ungodly, gave strength to the faith of the psalmist in an Eternal who makes for righteousness--in an Eternal who stands behind the regularity and certainty of the natural and the moral order. How to promote and maintain such regularity and certainty in human behavior, through morals or religion or education or government, has been a chief concern of humanity. How to promote and maintain them by the ordering of relations and adjustment of conflicting interests and determining of disputes has been the chief concern of organized humanity. Moreover, not the least part of that concern has been to insure regularity and certainty in the processes of ordering, adjusting, and determining. When one reflects on what has been done in the development of order and system in these processes, and weighs against the abuses incident to the political order, the gains which that order and system have brought us, he may well paraphrase the psalmist and say: "because of thy law am I content with thee, O state"." Lecture on "What is the Common Law" by Roscoe Pound, August 19, 1936.

What is so ironic in all of this, after considering the above blasphemous statement and last month's 'confessions of the law profession,' is the fact that these ungodly humanists, who joy it is to invert and perverter 'law' and 'truth' readily admit that 'their private law' is devoid of truth. They must admit it, for they are 'under the heel' of The Truth:

"For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth." 2 Cor 13:8

Through the Word of God, our Brother Paul instructed us concerning the inevitable fictions of fallen minds, and the avoidance thereof :

"For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." 2 Timothy 3:2-8

All of the above clearly demonstrates why the sanctuary of our Father's Word bestows upon us the blessings and gifts of Christian duty:

"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be My sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." 2 Corinthians 6:17-18

The conclusion of 'Fictions of law' next month.

Posting the Land

In reading the notice at the end of this article, you might think it says the same thing your commercial "NO TRESPASSING" sign says, and this is just so difficult to understand. I am here to tell you there is a universe of difference between the two--a great chasm separating them if you will. Chaff is not wheat, and wheat is not chaff. Just as in "IN VINCULIS" there are the three basic questions involved--again epistemology answered with ontology. I will not go into the three questions now, but will move on to what it is we are after. (If you want to know what those questions are, then acquire the pamphlets and tapes for that series from The Christian Jural Society Press.) This discourse will concern itself with four major passages of Scripture, each having a major impact on answering the same three basic questions.

Let's begin with our Blessed Lord's discourse with Nicodemus, for all must come to terms with Christ in the same way Nicodemus did. Brother Adam Clarke counts it this way:

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto Him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." John 3:3-8.
"Rabbi, 'My Master' or 'Teacher,' a title of respect given to the Jewish doctors, something like our 'Doctor of Divinity,' i.e., teacher of divine things. But as there may be many found among us who, though they bear the title, are no teachers, so it was among the Jews; and perhaps it was in reference to this that Nicodemus uses the word didaskalos immediately after, by which, in chap. I. 39, John translates the word rabbi. Rabbi, teacher, is often no more than a title of respect; didaskalos signifies a person who not only has the name of teacher but who actually does teach. We know that thou art a teacher sent from God. We, all the members of the grand Sanhedrin and all the rulers of the people, who have paid proper attention to Thy doctrine and miracles. We are all convinced of this, though we are not all candid enough to own it. It is possible, however, that we know signifies no more than 'it is known, it is generally acknowledged and allowed' that thou art a teacher come from God. No man can do these miracles. It is on the evidence of Thy miracles that I ground my opinion of Thee. No man can do what Thou dost unless the omnipotence of God be with him.
"3. Jesus answered. Not in the language of compliment; He saw the state of Nicodemus' soul , and He immediately addressed Himself to him on a subject the most interesting and important. But what connection is there between our Lord's reply and the address of Nicodemus? Probably our Lord saw that the object of his visit was to inquire about the Messiah's kingdom; and in reference to this He immediately says, Except a man be born again. The repetition of amen, or verily, verily, among the Jewish writers, was considered of equal import with the most solemn oath. Be born again. Or 'from above'; different to that new birth which the Jews supposed every baptized proselyte enjoyed; for they held that the Gentile who became a proselyte was like a newborn child. This birth was of water from below; the birth for which Christ contends is 'from above'--by the agency of the Holy Spirit. Every man must have two births: one from heaven, the other from earth--one of his body, the other of his soul. Without the first he cannot see nor enjoy this world; without the last he cannot see nor enjoy the kingdom of God. As there is an absolute necessity that a child should be born into the world, that he may see its light, contemplate its glories, and enjoy its good, so there is an absolute necessity that the soul should be brought out of its state of darkness and sin, through the light and power of the grace of Christ, that it may be able to see, or to 'discern,' the glories and excellencies of the kingdom of Christ here, and be prepared for the enjoyment of the Kingdom of glory hereafter. The Jews had some general notion of the new birth; but, like many among Christians, they put the acts of proselytism, baptism, etc., in the place of the Holy Spirit and His influence. They acknowledged that a man must be born again; but they made that new birth to consist in profession, confession, and external washing. The new birth which is here spoken of comprehends not only what is termed justification or pardon but also sanctification or holiness. Sin must be pardoned and the impurity of the heart washed away before any soul can possibly enter into the kingdom of God. As this new birth implies the renewing of the whole soul in righteousness and true holiness, it is not a matter that may be dispensed with. Heaven is a place of holiness, and nothing but what is like itself can ever into it.
"How can a man be born again when he is old? It is probable that Nicodemus was pretty advanced in age at this time; and from his answer we may plainly perceive that, like the rest of the Jews, and like multitudes of Christians, he rested in the letter, without paying proper attention to the spirit. The shadow, without the thing signified, had hitherto satisfied him. Our Lord knew him to be in this state, and this was the cause of His pointed address to him.
"Of water and of the Spirit. To the baptism of water a man was admitted when he became a proselyte to the Jewish religion; and, in this baptism, he promised the most solemn manner to renounce idolatry, to take the God of Israel for his God, and to have his life conformed to the precepts of the divine law. But the water which was used on the occasion was only an emblem of the Holy Spirit. The soul was considered as in a state of defilement because of past sin. Now, as by that water the body was washed, cleansed, and refreshed, so, by the influences of the Holy Spirit, the soul was to be purified from its defilement and strengthened to walk in the way of truth and holiness. When John came baptizing with water, he gave the Jews the plainest intimations that this would not suffice; that it was only typical of that baptism of the Holy Ghost, under the similitude of fire, which they must all receive from Jesus Christ. See Matt iii. 11. Therefore our Lord asserts that a man must be born of water and of the Spirit, i.e., the Holy Ghost, which, represented under the similitude of water, cleanses, refreshes, and purifies the soul. Though baptism by water in to the Christian faith was necessary to every Jew and Gentile that entered into the kingdom of the Messiah, it is not necessary that by water and the Spirit (in this place) we should understand two different things. It is probably only an elliptical form of speech for the Holy Spirit under the similitude of water; as in Matt iii. 3, 'the Holy Ghost and fire' do not mean two things, but one, viz., the Holy Ghost under the similitude of fire--pervading every part refining and purifying the whole.
"6. That which is born of the flesh is of the flesh. This is the answer to the objection made by Nicodemus in v. 4. 'Can a man enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?'
"8. The wind bloweth. Though the manner in which this new birth is effected by the Divine Spirit be incomprehensible to us, yet we must not on this ground supposed it to be impossible. The wind blows in a variety of directions--we hear its sound, perceive its operation in the motion of the trees, etc., and feel it on ourselves--but we cannot discern the air itself; we only know that it exists by the effects which it produces. So is every one that is born of the Spirit; the effects are as discernible and as sensible as those of the wind, but itself we cannot see. But he who is born of God knows that he is thus born. 'The Spirit itself,' the grand Agent in this new birth, 'beareth witness with our spirit,' that he is born of God, Rom viii. 16; for 'he that believethhath the witness in himself,' 1 John iv. 13 and v. 10; Gal iv. 6. And so does this Spirit work in and by him that others, though they see not the principle, can easily discern the change produced; for 'whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world,' 1 John v. 4." Adam Clarke, The Bethany Parallel Commentary of the New Testament (1983), pp. 513-515.

Truly, one cannot enter his mother's womb ever again, but one can enter again into that Righteous Relationship with God, through our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus, by the Grace God gives to men called for His righteous Purposes. It is this relationship which is evidenced to the world by the outward acts: James 2:14-26; "Acta exteriora indicant interiora secreta --Outward acts indicate inward intent." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2124; "Acts indicate the intention." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2124. The Intent of a Good and Lawful Christian is twofold: One, to walk meekly before God our Father doing all things for His Glory and Majesty to the end of revealing to the world Him and the Superiority of His Ways; and, Two, to Lawfully execute the Duties and Powers appertaining to the Noble and Sacred Office of Christ, for the Glory of the Son. It is this relationship Brother Paul discoursed about in writing to both the Galatians and the Romans. But before we get to Brother Paul, Brother John, the Lord's beloved apostle, gives us that all important clue which Brother Paul amplifies later:

"But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on His Name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." Jn 1:12-13.

Again, Brother Adam Clarke's remarks illuminate our understanding:

"12. Gave he power. 'Privilege, honor, dignity, or right.' He who is made a child of God enjoys the greatest 'privilege' which the Divine Being can confer on this side of eternity. Those who accept Jesus Christ as He is offered to them in the gospel have, through His blood, a 'right' to this sonship; for by that sacrifice this blessing was purchased, and the fullest promises of God confirm it to all who believe. And those who are engrafted in the heavenly family have the highest 'honor' and 'dignity' to which it is possible for a human soul to arrive." Adam Clarke, The Bethany Parallel Commentary of the New Testament (1981), pp. 498-499.

Our esteemed Brother Matthew Henry quite agrees:

"3. He came to His own (v. 11); not only to the world, which was His own, but to the people of Israel, that were peculiarly His own. To them He was first sent. He came to His own, to seek and save them, because they were His own. The generality rejected Him; His own received Him not. He had reason to expect that those who were His own should have bidden him with signs and wonders, and Himself the greatest; and therefore it is not said of them, as it was of the world (v. 10), that they knew Him not. Many who in profession are Christ's own, yet do not receive Him, because they will not part with their sins, nor have Him to reign over them. Yet there was a remnant who owned Him, and were faithful to Him. There were those that received Him (v. 12); But as many as received Him. There were many of them that were wrought upon to submit to Christ, and many more that were not of that fold. The true Christian's description and property; and that is, that he receives Christ and believes on His Name. Believing in Christ's Name is receiving Him as a gift from God. We must receive His Doctrine as true and good; and we must receive the image of His Grace [*the Holy Spirit] and the impressions of His Love, as the governing principle of our affections and actions. The true Christians' dignity and privilege are twofold:
"First, The privilege of adoption: To them gave the power to become the sons of God. Hitherto, the adoption pertained to the Jews only; but now, by faith in Christ, Gentiles are the children of God. To them gave he a right; this power have all the saints. It is the unspeakable privilege of all good Christians, that they are become the children of God. If they be the children of God, they become so, are made so. Behold what manner of love is this, 1 John iii, 1. God calls them His children, they call Him Father. The privilege of adoption is entirely owing to Jesus Christ; He gave this power to them that believe on His Name. The Son of God became a Son of man, that the sons and daughters of men might become the sons and daughters of God Almighty.
"Secondly, The privilege of regeneration (v. 13): Which were born. All the children of God are born again; all that are adopted are regenerated. Now here we have an account of the original of this new birth. 1. Negatively. (1) It is not of blood, not of the will of the flesh, nor of corruptible seed. We do not become the children of God as we become the children of our natural parents. Grace does not run in the blood, as corruption does. (2) It is not produced by the natural power of our own will [*self-will]. As it is not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, so neither is it of the the will of man. It is the grace of God that makes us willing to be His. But, 2. Positively; it is of God. This new birth is owing to the Word of God as the means and to the Spirit of God as the great and sole Author. True believers are born of God, 1 John iii, 9: v, 1." Matthew Henry, The Bethany Parallel Commentary of the New Testament (1981), pp. 498-499.

Now if we notice in our Brothers' commentaries, we see that God, through His Son Christ Jesus, bestows conditionally Rights, Powers, Privileges and Immunities to those called by Him. Let us make no mistake about this--no one has any inherent Lawful right to adoption by God. Thus, it is not a matter of "self-will" or "choice." This is solely a matter of Grace of Him Who calls you to repentance. In this sense, you are under the Grace of God, for without it all would perish. But with it, men find that eternal life in Him Who called. Having once been called and regenerated by the Power of the Holy Spirit, a new creature is born in a Venue separate from the will of men; and are not subordinate to the will of men, but submissive or meek (praus) only to the voice of the Shepherd Christ Jesus, the Author of the call. To be born of the Spirit of God is not to be born of the spirit of codes, rules, and regulations. Therefore, the stranger is one who comes in the name or warrant of such things, which are not general laws emanating from the Body of Christ, the church. This may seem harsh at first, but because Christ Jesus is the Door then those who do not have that relationship with Him, or His several Ministerial Officers executing His Testament, stranger is the appropriate word:

"STRANGERS. By this term is intended third persons generally. Thus the persons bound by a fine are parties, privies, and strangers; the parties are either cognizors or cognizees; the privies are such as are in any way related to those who levy the fine, and claim under them by any right of blood, or other right of representation [*Christ Jesus is our Mediator]; the strangers are all other persons in the world, except only the parties and privies. In its general legal signification the term is opposed to the word 'privy.' Those who are in no way parties to a covenant [*establishing the Inheritance and adoption], nor bound by it [*Lawless, anomian and antinomians] are also said to be strangers to the covenant. Brown. See Robbins v. Chicago, 4 Wall. 672, 18 L.Ed. 427; Wilson v. Smith, 213 Ky. 836, 281 S.W. 1008, 1010; State v. Mills, 23 N.M. 549, 169 P. 1171, 1173; Gronewold v. Gronewold, 304 Ill. 11, 136 N.E. 489, 490. See, also, STRANGER." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 1590. [Emphasis and insertions added.]

Beware then, of those who come in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravening wolves, seeking whom they may devour:

"PERSONATE. In criminal law. To assume the person (character) of another, without his consent or knowledge, in order to deceive others, and, in such feigned character, to fraudulently do some act or gain some advantage, to the harm or prejudice of the person counterfeited. 2 East, P.C. 1010. To pass one's self off as another having a certain identity. Lane v. U.S., C.C.A.Ohio, 17 F.2d 923." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 1301.

The key phrase in the forgoing Scripture then is "not subordinate to the will of men." The stranger is of the will of man, for the Ways of God are not the ways of man: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Is 55:8-9.

How is the called man regenerated? How is this "will of man" manifested? And how is this new creature to be reckoned? The answers to these questions are found in the Author Who is the Source of the Calling and Regeneration.

First, let us look at a few key words in the Greek, and as you read this definition, you might also turn your bibles over to the places mentioned and read there what is really being said. In the Greek there are more words translated to the singular English word of "mind."

"3563. NOUS. Mind; the organ of mental perception and apprehension the organ of conscious life; the organ of the consciousness preceding actions or recognizing and judging them; the understanding of word, concept, sense (Luke 24:56; Titus 1:15). Deriv.: verb noeo (3539), to perceive with the mind, as distinct from perception by feeling; dianoia (1271), the faculty of thought, from dianoeo, to agitate in the mind. Intellectual faculty, understanding or moral reflection. With an evil significance, a consciousness characterized by a perverted moral impulse, or with a good significance, the faculty renewed by the Holy Spirit. Dianoia also means a sentiment, disposition, not as a function but as a product with an evil sense or in a good sense. Dianoema (1270), reflection with machinations; ennoia (1771), from en (1722), in, and nous, mind, meaning an idea, consideration which denotes purpose, intention, design; noema (3540), thought, a purpose, device of the mind; epinoia (1963), a thought by way of evil design; anoetos (453), not applying the mind sometimes with moral reproach, contrast sophron (4998), self-controlled, one who governs his lusts; katanoeo (2657), from the intens. prep. kata (2596) and noeo, meaning to perceive making it the action of the mind in apprehending certain facts about a thing; pronoeo (4306), from pro (4253), before, and noeo, meaning to perceive thus to take thought of before, provide; pronoia (4307), forethought, providence, provision; huponoeo (5282) from hupo (5259), under, and noeo, denoting diminution, thus lack of proper knowledge and therefore to suspect, suppose; the noun huponoia, suspicion, surmising; anoia (454), without understanding, folly, senselessness (2 Tim 3:9), violent, mad rage, or madness resulting from it." Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study, New Testament (1994), p. 924. [Emphasis added.]
"3563. NOUS. Probably from the base of 1097; the intellect, i.e. mind (divine or human; in thought, feeling, or will); by implication meaning: --mind, understanding. Compare 5590." Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible and Greek Dictionary of the New Testament, p. 50.

The Mind of Christ is manifested in the nous bestowed by God Almighty through Christ Jesus. There is no other way to acquire this Mind of Christ. We can then fully agree with Brother Paul:

"Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." Rom 8:12-17. [Emphasis added.]

"Therefore, brethren. Dr. Taylor is of opinion that the apostle, having spoken separately to both Jews and Gentiles concerning holiness and the obligations to it, now addresses himself to both conjointly, and, (1) Draws the general conclusion from all his arguments upon the subject, v 12. (2) Proves the validity of their claims to eternal life, vv 14-17. (3) And as the affair of suffering persecution was a great stumbling block to the Jews, and might very much discourage the Gentiles, he introduces it to the best advantage, v 17, and advances several trials: as (a) That they suffered with Christ; (b) In order to be glorified with Him in a manner which will infinitely compensate al sufferings, vv 17-18. (c) All mankind are under various pressures, longing for a better state, vv 19-22. (d) Many of the most eminent Christians are in the same distressed condition, v 23. (e) According to the plan of the gospel, we are to be brought to glory after a course of patience exercised in a variety of trials, vv 24-25. (f) The Spirit of God will supply patience to every upright soul under persecution and suffering, vv 26-27. (g) All things, even the several trials, shall work together for their good, v 28. And this he proves by giving us a view of the several steps which the wisdom and goodness of God have settled in order to our complete salvation, vv 29-30. Thence he passes to the affair of our perseverance, concerning which he concludes, from the whole of his preceding arguments, that as we are brought into a state of pardon by the free grace of God, through the death of Christ, who is now our Mediator in heaven, no possible cause, providing we continue to love and serve God, shall be able to pervert our minds or separate us from His love in Christ Jesus, vv 31-39. Therefore is the grand inference from all that he has been arguing in relation to sanctity of life, both to the Gentiles, chap vi and to the Jews, caps vii and viii to this verse, where I suppose he begins to address himself to both, in a body, to the end of the chapter.
"13. But if ye through the Spirit--if you seek that grace and spiritual help which the gospel of Christ furnishes--resist, and, by resisting, mortify the deeds of the flesh, against which the law gave you no assistance, ye shall live a life of faith, love, and holy obedience here, and a life of glory hereafter.
"14. For as many as are led by the Spirit. No man who has not divine assistance can either find the way to heaven or walk in it when found. As Christ by His sacrificial offering has opened the kingdom of God to all believers, and as a Mediator transacts the concerns of their Kingdom before the Throne, so the Spirit of God is the great Agent here below to enlighten, quicken, strengthen, and guide the true disciples of Christ; and all that are born of this Spirit are led and guided by Him, and none can pretend to be the children of God who are not thus guided.
"15. Ye have not received the spirit of bondage. All that were under the law were under bondage to its rites and ceremonies; and as, through the prevalence of that corrupt nature with which the law gave no assistance, they were often transgressing, consequently they had forfeited their lives, and were continuously, through fear of death, subject to bondage, Heb ii, 15. The believers in Christ Jesus were brought from under that law and from under its condemnation, and consequently were freed from its bondage [*for they now live by, in and through Christ Jesus].
"But ye have received the Spirit of adoption. You are brought into the family of God by adoption; and the Agent that brought you into this family is the Holy Spirit; and this very Spirit continues to witness to you the grace in which you stand, by enabling you to call God your Father, with the utmost filial confidence and affection. The Spirit of adoption. Adoption was an act frequent among the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans, by which a person was taken out of one family and incorporated with another. Persons of property, who had no children of their own, adopted those of another family. The child thus adopted ceased to belong to his own family and was in every respect bound to the person who had adopted him, as if he were his own child, and in consequence of the death of his adopting father he possessed his estates. If a person after he had adopted a child happened to have children of his own, then the estate was equally divided between the adopted and real children. The Romans had regular forms of law by which all these matters were settled. Whereby we cry, Abba, Father. It has been remarked that slaves were not permitted to use the term Abba, father, or Imma, mother, in accosting their masters and mistresses. And from this some suppose that the apostle intimates that being new brought from under the spirit of bondage, in which they durst not call God their Father, they are not only brought into a new state, but have got that language which is peculiar to that state. Some have supposed that the apostle, by using the Syriac and Greek words which express Father, shows the union of Jewish and Gentile believers in those devotions which were dictated by a filial spirit. Others have thought that these were the first words which those generally uttered who were made partakers of the Holy Spirit. It is enough to know that it was the language of their sonship; and that it expressed the clear assurance they had of being received in to the divine favour, the affection and gratitude they felt for this extraordinary blessing and their complete readiness to come under the laws and regulations of the family, and to live in the spirit of obedience [*to the Law appertaining to the Noble and Sacred Ministerial Office of Christ].
"16. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit. 'That same spirit,' the Spirit of adoption; that is, the Spirit who witnesses this adoption; which can be no other than the Holy Spirit himself, and certainly cannot mean any disposition or affection of mind which the adopted person may feel. With our spirit. In our understanding, the place or recipient of light and information, and the place or faculty to which such information can properly be brought. This is done that we may have the highest possible evidence of the work which God has wrought. As the window is the proper medium to let the light of the sun in to our apartments, so the understanding is the proper medium of conveying the Spirit's influence to the soul. We therefore have the utmost evidence of the fact of our adoption which we can possibly have; we have the word and Spirit of God, and he word sealed on our Spirit by the Spirit of God. And this is not a momentary influx. If we take care to walk with God and not grieve the Holy Spirit, we shall have an abiding testimony; and while we continue faithful to our adopting Father, the Spirit that witnesses that adoption will continue to witness it, and hereby we shall know that we are of God by the Spirit which He giveth us.
"17. And if children, then heirs. For the legitimate children alone can inherit the estate. This is not an estate to which they succeed in consequence of the death of the former possessor; it is like the Promised Land, given by God Himself, and divided among the children of the family. Heirs of God. It is neither an earthly portion nor a heavenly portion, but God Himself, who is to be their Portion. It is not heaven they are to inherit; it is God, who is infinitely greater and more glorious than heaven itself. Joint-heirs with Christ. Partaking of the same eternal glory with the glorified human nature of Christ. If so be that we suffer with Him. Observe, says Dr. Taylor, how prudently the apostle advances to the harsh affair of suffering. He does not mention it till he has raised up their thoughts to the highest object of joy and pleasure--the happiness and glory of a joint inheritance with the ever blessed Son of God. We are heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with Him. This with the additional consideration that we suffer with Christ, or as He Himself suffered, would greatly qualify the transitory afflictions of this world, and dispose them to attend to the other arguments He had to offer." Adam Clarke, The Bethany Parallel Commentary of the New Testament (1981), pp. 926-928. [Emphasis added.]

If you are an heir, then you must manifest such by bearing the fruits of repentance--obedience and meekness--and claim that Inheritance of God given you through Christ Jesus, "for the meek shall inherit the earth." See Mt 5:5 and Ps 37:11. Such is the foregoing notice--but it is not the earth you Inherit--it is the Close you Inherit, that Righteous Warrant in the Law which establishes the Power to claim the land in His Name and not your own. We cannot, and, in deed must not, use any commercial counterfeits. Why? Because of the following maxims of Law:

"Causa et origo est materia negotii --The cause and origin is the substance of the thing; the cause and origin of a thing are a material part of it." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 278; Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2127.
"Unumquodque est id quod est principalius in ipso --That which is the principal part of a thing is the thing itself." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2166.

If you use a commercial counterfeit, then the source is not God's Law--it is the lex mercatoria. Thus, there is no sanctification or separation from and between yourself and the commercial world. You will have ignorantly imported the fiction over the Truth in Christ Jesus, thereby marring the Seal of, and grieving, the Holy Spirit of God our Father. You must declare the Law written on your heart having the Seal of the Spirit of God which evidences and witnesses your adoption by God our Father in and through Christ Jesus. It is the adoption and evidence or witness of the Holy Spirit which gives evidence or witness of interest in the Close declared by the Law. The two are like a hand in a glove. If you use a commercial counterfeit, the foot does not fit a glove made for the hand; neither does a sock properly fit a hand. You must use the law fit for the purpose and God's Law is the only law that governs the Close given you by Him through Christ Jesus: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Gen 1:1. [This is the original act bringing the estate into being. All other derivative estates are necessarily dependent upon and governed by the Intent and Will of God, our Creator.]

"Le ley est le plus haut inheritance que le roy ad, car par le ley, il mesme et touts ses jujets sont rules, et si le ley ne fuit, nul roy ne nul inheritance serra --The law is the highest inheritance that the king possesses; for by the law both he and all his subjects are ruled; and if there were no law, there would be neither king nor inheritance." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2142. [In commerce there is no law, and therefore, no inheritance.]
"Le ley de Dieu et ley de terre sont tout un, et l'un et l'autre preferre et favour le common et publique bien del terre --The law of God and the law of the land are all one; and both preserve and favor the common good of the land." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2142.
"But one who is prevented from doing a contemplated illegal act cannot maintain an action for damages for the interference with his illegal purpose." Bangor, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 49 Me. 9, 77 Am.D. 246.
"Trespass distinguished. Waste is an injury to the inheritance by one rightfully in possession of the property. Trespass is an injury to the estate or the use thereof by one who is a stranger to the title, with no right whatever in the property. [Stephenson v. National Bank of Winter Haven, 109 So. 424, 425, 92 Fla. 347; Brigham v. Overstreet, 57 S.E. 484, 128 Ga. 447, 10 L.R.A.N.S. 452, 11 Ann.Cas. 75; Dahlquist v. Mattson, 233 P. 883, 886, 40 Idaho 378; Duvall v. Waters, 1 Bland 569, 18 Am.D. 350; Price v. Ward, 58 P. 849, 25 Nev. 203, 46 L.R.A. 459; Roots v. Boring Junction Lumber Co., 92 P. 811, 94 P. 182, 50 Or. 298; Walker v. Fox, 2 S.W. 98, 85 Tenn. 154; Lander v. Hall, 34 N.W. 80, 69 Wisc. 326; Lowndes v. Bettle (English), 33 L.J.Ch. 451.

Posted

Notice to All Breaking the Close over this land:

John Joseph, an obedient son of God our Father solely by His Grace through our Blessed Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, to all breaking this Close of and over this land, greetings from God our Father, and His Son Christ Jesus:

In the Blessed Name and Authority of our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, by His Direction and Mandate and under His Warrant in His Testament, I hereby post the following at the gates to this Close of and over this land and on the door posts of the dwelling-house therein:

Whereas, the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, and His Intent manifested in His original Act in His Testament of bringing into being His Estate governs all derived from it; therefore when God our Father sent His Son to execute His Testament according to His Will, so His Son sent into the world those called by Him from the foundation of the world for His Dignity, Glory, Majesty and purposes; and,

Whereas, all Power in heaven and in earth hath been committed to Christ Jesus by God our Father, Who bestows the same upon those Whom He hath called and sent into the world in execution of, and to execute, the Righteous Judgments in His Holy Writ in His Name and under His Warrants contained therein; and,

Whereas, as many as believe in and on His Son He gives the power to become the sons of God by and through adoption, and a son hath Inheritance common in all other sons through and in Christ Jesus, therefore the Close of and over this land and all Rights in and of the Inheritance established by, through and in Christ Jesus, have been Willed by God our Father, through our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, to John Joseph and his seed in perpetuity; and,

Whereas, the Will of our King and Testator in His Law and Testament instituting the Inheritance establishes and governs the Rights of those who Inherit the Close of and over this land instituted by our King in His Law and Testament, therefore those who act and do contrary to the Will of our King and Testator are not His sons, but bastards, having no Close or right in and to any Inheritance established by the Will of our Blessed King and Testator; and,

Whereas, the Law of God and the law of the land are all one, and both favour and preserve the common good of the land, therefore ignorance of God's Law is no excuse, for all men know God, even His eternal Power and Godhead, and are not presumed ignorant of their eternal welfare; and,

Wherefore, any and all who enter here without consent evidenced by Warrant in Law from God our Father, through our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, and His several appointed Ministerial Officers having and being of one Mind in Christ, but enter either in their own name or by the name of a stranger having no Rights of and in the Inheritance common among Good and Lawful Christians: One, break this Close; Two, breach the Peace of our King, by violating His Law establishing this Close and all Powers appertaining to the Noble and Sacred Ministerial Office of Christ; Three, destroy the Domestic Tranquility of His son; Four, endanger His Inheritance in and of His son by adoption; and, Five, are, in His Law governing this Close, trespassers, thieves, and robbers having not entered through the Door; and,

Therefore, an action of trespass quare clausam fregit will lie against all such who break this Close through or under such pretenses or color of Law.

Conversations with a 501(c)-3 Corpse

presented by The King's Men

The following is a series of letters between Steven Milton and the Pastor of the "church" he and his family have been attending for some time, along with his introduction, and comments on the letters.

Steven Milton's Introduction

Approximately one year before I wrote the first letter to the "church,' I had approached one of the Deacons and asked him if he would see to it to have my name removed from the role of members. When the Pastor was selling the idea to the congregation of borrowing two (2) million dollars to expand, I told my wife I was glad I was not a voting member and responsible for that debt. Debbie, my wife, then showed me that our names were still in the church directory as members. This prompted me to write the first letter. I had no idea where it would lead.

First Letter

From: Steven Milton

To: First Baptist Church of ____

Please take note

The Creation can not be greater than the Creator.

In the last several years I have been involved in biblical studies, as well as studies in law. As a result of that study, I believe that God has revealed many things to me that have gone unnoticed and are a hindrance to the Christian life and growth. I have been vocal to many and have expressed the desire to openly confront these areas with others, but so far have found no one to take up the challenge with me.

Let me share with you some areas of conflict:

1. Is the body of Christ an Organism or an Organization? Recently this question was raised and helped me to understand what biblical law, as well as man's law, means about the concept of ORGANIZATION and ORGANISM. An Organism is a living thing. I am living, and I am a part of the body of Christ. The body of Christ is the church. So how is it that ______ First Baptist can be called a "CHURCH?" The answer is simple; they are not an "Organism" but rather an "Organiza- tion." An Organization is a creature of the "state," and as such must hold allegiance to the creator of their organization. Their title church is given to them by the state to "organizations" only. Separation of church and state, no matter how we view the concept is not valid for an organization which gets its status from the law of men under a 501(c)-3 corporation.

2. All those who join with an organization that is under corporation status accept the debt of that organization and become subject to that debt of another. I do not need to tell you what the scripture tells us about this debt.

3. Borrowing money, for expansion, from the ungodly bankers is not a biblical principle and as such can not be blessed by God.

4. Democracy is not a biblical principle for God's people. If God directs men to move in a fashion led by God, then no vote can change the will of God. And even if everyone voted to borrow two million federal reserve notes to expand, it violates God's Law, and as such can not be God's will. How can breaking God's Law be God's will. It can not!

These concerns cause me to insist that my name, and the names of those in my care, be removed from your membership role. I have a concern that my wife and daughter will feel pressure in that they must be members to teach or work with you, in areas they feel are a ministry. I hope that you will allow them to continue since they have exhibited a track record in the past, and both Debbie and Jessica have never proven to be a problem. I have no concern with any fellowship they have with you so long as they are not associated with the debt of others, or the 501(c)-3 status that is not part of 'God's' church.

I would also hope I can continue to come and fellowship with those who are the Church at your organization. I have always found friends there.

I would love the opportunity to sit down and study this matter with you. I am always excited to study God's Word. Law is a big part of His Word, and as such, His Law must be understood. Our lack of being in Covenant with Him is in large part because of our failure to know His Law.

I will enclose some material for your examination. I am sure you will study it because as men moved of God, as you desire to be, you need to understand (knowledge) the subject to make good decisions in your life. Do not fear the loss of your organization; this need not happen if you walk in the full council of God. I have found many ways to separate out from among them and be a special people unto the Lord. We are called out, not to join in. But be more concerned with the loss of the Organism of the body of Christ. My decisions have not been simple, and I have many challenges, however The Bible tells me that when I stand for God and His Law, I will be in conflict with the world and the rulers of darkness.

May God open ears to hear,

God Be with you, Steven Milton

dated this thirteenth day of October in the year of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ nineteen hundred and ninety-seven.

Steven Milton's comment on the first letter

Please note the October 30, 1997. The following Sunday the Pastor's sermon was very good. He preached about the 'church' as an 'Organism,' a living thing. I was exited that he had read the material. Then he ended with a very emphatic, "so now you should join the church here at ____ and be a part of God's work with us." O' well, I guess my letter was boring and he did not read it at all. I went home!

After the holiday season was over, and I had continued reading and studying this issue I realized that it was probably not their intent to deal with me. Their hope would be, I was guessing, "that this fanatic crazy would go away." They would not want to 'waste time on this stuff.' But I have too much Scotch and Irish in me to ignore the lack of a response. The second letter is not a threat, but rather a push to get them to attempt to deal with the subject I had raised. Some felt I was threatening, but I assure you the action I planned was not. I was going to legally cut my relationship with them. This letter was sent January 24, 1998.

Second Letter

Dear Pastor and Deacons:

Recently I sent you a letter expressing my concern about practices that violate The Scriptures. I expressed also that I was concerned that the created is not greater than the Creator, and as such, the 501(c)-3 church (a man-made entity) could never be greater that the state which gave it creation. As such, you are servants of the State, not the God whom you purport to be your Head. I sent you information about the church/State relationship for your study.

I never received any response from you, which has perplexed me. The common response would be, I assume, that I was in error. If so, I was willing to study the issue from your understanding. The other response is to ask me how the real "Church," a living body, could come out of Babylon.

If you do not respond at all, it is acquiescence to my information, as fact. In fact, you are stating that I am correct and you choose to do nothing about it. I would be very concerned if you chose that course.

So I am of the opinion at this time that you are unaware of the role you must play in a question raised about who your master is. You must answer me in one of the following manners:

1. Agree with me about your role with the State of WA., and seek remedy for you and the members of your "church."

2. Disagree with me about your role, and have an answer ready to support your position.

3. Agree to discuss the matter.

4. Avoid me (choose to remain blind) or ask me to not be a part of the body of Christ that meets in your building.

I hope we are all seeking the Truth from God and His Word.

I do need you to act quickly in one matter. I informed you that I insisted you remove my name and the name of my family from your role of membership. This was for the reasons set down in my previous letter. You need to respond to me "immediately." If you do not, I intend to take action to insure I am not a 'party' to the 'surety of debt' you are creating.

I have always cared for many people that are a part of your body. I am convinced that there are many Christians in your fellowship and I have chosen to believe Sam and Jim both desire to preach the true Word of God. I do not desire to cause any disharmony, and ask you to pray and seek God's face, humble yourself, and turn from your wicked ways, then God, Who is in Heaven, will hear us and heal our land.

Please have a Deacon hand-deliver a letter, with the signature of the Pastor and Hank, informing me that my name and the names of my family members has in fact been removed from the membership. We desire to continue to fellowship, so please attempt to answer other questions raised in the first letter.

I am anxious to seek the Truth that comes from the Word of God.

In Christ's Name, Steven Milton

Steven Milton's comment on the second letter

Well I guess I hit a spot because I did finally get a letter back. However, you may notice that the letter from the Pastor was not about my material concerning the church, or the debt, but off point. I was a little surprised because I thought that I would meet opposition about my material or points relating to them. I was relieved when I saw that I was not missing some great truth so simple and common to man, and I was the only fool that did not know it. He had to resort to attacking me personally. It seems funny that when when we get too close to the root of a problem, the attack will turn personal.

The Pastor's response

February 2, 1998

Dear Steve,

I want to apologize for not responding sooner to your letters and tapes. I want you to know that I have the highest regard and love for you and your family. I also believe that you are very sincere in your beliefs, but I must say from my study of the Scripture, that I believe you are sincerely wrong in some of your beliefs.

In your last letter, two times you say that we "must seek the Truth from God's Word." I agree. I ask you to read very carefully Romans 13:1-7. These verses are crystal clear as to God's desire that every believer live in submission to governmental authority. It is also clear that God expects believers to pay their taxes to the government.

I agree that there are many inequities in our government and tax system, but God didn't say that I am to pay my taxes if I agree with the government. He clearly said in these verses that I am to pay them. Our church lives under the Biblical mandate of Romans 13:1-7 in its relationship to the government. The way we are functioning and operating is Biblically-based.

If you, after prayer and consideration of these verses, still want your family's names removed from membership rolls of our church, then we will do so. I would hope that you would not make that insistence, because I believe that all families need the protective umbrella of membership in a New Testament church. I'm sending a copy of this letter to all of our deacons-- and, as far as I, and they, are concerned, this letter answers your questions and settles the matter.

The Bible says, "Speak the truth in love," and this I have done.

In the Grip of His Grace,

Your Pastor, ...................

Steven Milton's third letter with response

To: Pastor and Deacons

Dear Pastor,

Thank you for your letter dated Feb. 2, 1998. I have been blessed with the opportunity to study the law of man, as well as the Law of God. This has led to a number of exiting and troubling revelations. Since I seek the Truth, I do not desire to ignore any of them. I have made many mistakes and have more than my share of sin, so please do not assume I am coming off with the attitude of being of a spiritual mind over anyone else. However, I seek the answers to my questions and a response from you, and must not relent yet.

First off may I ask, what beliefs of mine, do you believe are wrong? You stated in your letter of 2/2/98 that you believe I am "sincerely wrong in some beliefs." Would you elaborate more on this? Since nothing to the effect of paying taxes was discussed in any of my letters to you, I am concerned about what you believe I believe. This issue is dear to my heart and I do have a very solid biblical answer about it. I am unaware that anyone has attempted to talk with me on this subject. John ......., in passing, said he would like to get together with me on some matters, however I have been awaiting his renewed interest. Lanny ....... and I had some very good times in the past concerning our need to get involved in our community and work to stop the evil that was ever present, but God apparently did not want us to continue, and as such, we fizzled out. Ed ....... has always been very friendly and I consider him to be a friend as well as the others.

I do seek the truth of the Word and ask you if any of the Deacons and/or yourself are interested in setting aside a time to delve into the answers to questions raised by my letters? I am not at this time interested in the matter of taxes because God has shown me that we can major on minors and not accomplish what matters most. I sent 10 packets out to you and 9 Deacons. Each one was personally address to them and one to you. I left them at the church office and was expecting someone would get in touch with me to seek the truth and correct me if I was wrong, as is suggested in Scripture. I know several Deacons to be men who will face a challenge head on and have the love of God, so was I truly anticipating a response.

The Bible is clear that we are not under the law and our freedom comes from the work of the cross, however it also tells me that God has given me the earnest down payment of the Spirit to indwell within me and teach me truth. The double witness of this truth is found in the Word of God, and is clear about many areas of concern. How we are to live and conduct ourselves, as well as we are to stand against evil, is very clearly spelled out. We, when exposed to a lie must call it what it is, or we become--as in the eyes of God and even as the statutory legal system states--a party to the action of a wrong. I am sure that most of the Deacons are willing to seek the truth to know that they are acting in the correct manner. When we stand before God, I do not find anywhere in Scripture that He will say "I understand you did not know the truth so I will excuse you." I am sure that you do not support that idea.

The issues I raised in my decision to have my name and the names of my family removed from the rolls of your church were: 1. The created can not be greater than the creator. As such, who is the creator of the 501©3 church? 2. We are not to be surety for the debt of another, and we are not to be in debt to the un-godly. Please see my letters. I stated that no vote can correct a matter that is clearly spelled out in the Scriptures. God calls that "rebellion." I do find that I have the responsibility to stand against this incorrect teaching, and I have done so.

You stated in your letter that "all families need the protective umbrella of membership in a New Testament Church." I find this very interesting since I have given you much information about the church and its definition. If you read the packet I sent you, you will discover that the 501©3 "church" is not the "Church" described in the New Testament. AQs I explained to you before, the New Testament Church is a living body of believers. I am, and those in my family have made the same profession. We do fellowship with other believers, and as such, are in the family. However, the 501©3 church is a dead thing, (see my notes), and as such, is not the same as the church of the New Testament. This study has been confirmed by more than I wish to attempt to name, and it is now clear that a great deception has taken over the true "Church" that may be stealing much of the power the "Church" has at its disposal. Please do not mix these two separate entities up. One is alive in Christ Jesus, and one is dead in trespass and sin. One will be raised in glory, and one will burn as wood, hay, and stubble. In discussion about Romans 13:1-7. Are you saying that NO MATTER WHAT, we are to obey government? Are you ready to put Joseph Stalin's name in the place of government? How about any other wicked man or men that have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people? If that is true, are we being "rebellious" when we go against Saddam Hussein, who by this interpretation is:

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Romans 13:3-4

If the above is true, when are you and the Deacons sending a letter to President Clinton telling him that he is doing evil in resisting the lawful authority of a sovereign government? And when will you and the Deacons be sending a letter of condemnation to Sam Friend and all those who are sneaking Bibles and other illegal contraband into countries where the lawful government has forbid it? Or should we re-submit ourselves under England? I am sure you will not support that severe of an interpretation, and neither do I. I would be willing to study this out to find an answer that fits with correct Bible understanding. I am willing to follow whatever the Bible truly teaches.

I must insist that the names of me and my family be removed from the membership role, as we must seek to follow the examples set down in The Word. I am not interested in becoming a legalist, and do not believe that attempting to follow Bible mandates is doing that at all. I have basically found fellowship at your corporate association good. I hope this will not harm our fellowship in the future with you or those who are members.

I am very interested in your ideas about the subjects previously mentioned; however you will never begin to understand what I believe, without a study of the issues with me. Since you are very busy I am sure you will find it a challenge, but you or a Deacon(s) might benefit from study in these matters.

As an end to this letter, I am setting before all who have an ear to hear, a challenge to seek God in these matters, and fear not. For our God is The Maker and Creator of all things. We need not act like that great bird that fearing it cannot fly hides its head in the sand, for we have been given wings of eagles and with the power of the Holy Spirit of God can rise to any challenge. We have been given a great inheritance and am suggesting right now that we have failed to take it, just as the children of Israel filed to claim it and wandered in the wilderness for an additional 38 years. God called them a "rebellious" people.

I choose to take that which He has given me. I choose to enter the promise of His Son. As for me and my family, we will serve the Lord. Join me.

Your Brother in Christ, Steven Milton

On this Eleventh day of February in the year of the Lord Jesus Nineteen hundred and ninety eight, I declare this to be true before Almighty God. Amen, Amen.

Steven Milton's comments on third letter

By this time, I am becoming a lot more bold and my letter has increased in size. As I study new material, I desire to incorporate more material. I even end with double Amen's, showing a finality or double witness to what has been said. I have, by this time, begun to feel the Spirit of God moving in me. I am excited, and realize that God is using me to warn those who will hear, as well as create a finality for those who will not. I am convinced that He is in control. I am the Clay, and like it. Thank you Lord for your hands that mold me. I became personally aware that God had desired me to "step out in faith." I could not see what was going to happen. He then blessed me as I went on. He never forced me to do anything, but He directed me, and my faith grew.

The conversions above are part of a continuing process. Two additional lengthy letters by Steven Milton have been sent to the church. For those who are interested in these letters and further responses from 'the church,' you can contact Steven Milton by writing to:

Inheritance Ministries
6830 NE Bothell Way, suite 307
Bothell, Washington [98011]

Broken Ramparts of Creed and Custom

(continued from Issue the Twenty-seventh)

Presented by John Joseph

Washington Gladden, born in 1836, one of the editors of the Independent from 1871 to 1875, did his great pastoral work with the First Congregational Church, Columbus, Ohio, but a greater work still as a leader in the new movement for the socialization of religion. Theological thought was not his primary interest, but his liberal tendencies coupled with his devotion to social enterprises as not merely humanitarian but as an essential function of religion did much to win followers of the new views.

Phillips Brooks, born in 1835, was rector of Trinity Church, Boston, from 1869 until he became bishop of Massachusetts in 1891, less than two years before his death. He was a broad churchman whose influence in liberalizing religious thought grew not out of the fact that he accepted new ideas as evolution and Biblical criticism, as he probably did, or that he preached or expounded them, as he certainly did not, but out of the fact that he refused to allow himself to be gravely concerned about them. His unbounded capacity for maintaining Christian fellowship with men whose opinions were other than his own was an immense contribution toward the creation of an atmosphere in which religious thought could be really free. Besides that, he advanced the prestige of religion by the fact that he was loved as perhaps as no other American preacher has been loved by people in his own church, in other churches, and in no church.

George A. Gordon was installed as minister of the old South Church (Congregational) in Boston in 1884. The Christian Union called it at the time "a significant installation," but no one could know then how significant it was to be. "He is neither old school nor new school, Calvinist nor Arminian, Bushnellite or Parkite. He is equally ready to realize the possibility of verbal inspiration in one passage and to reject it in another; equally ready to admit the possibility of redemption after death and to refuse to assert it dogmatically." If this suggests that he was willing to teach that the earth is round or flat, as the trustees prefer, the impression is erroneous. He was a cautious liberal, but his influence was constantly on the side of more liberal positions than those of the majority.

Joseph Cook of Boston, was a mighty champion but it was sometimes hard to tell which side he was the champion of. Drawing immense audiences to his Monday lectures, which taxed the seating capacity of the largest hall in Boston, he first defended the old tenets by new methods; then, freed from the restraining influence of his old teacher, Professor Park, he moved forward so far that, while defending the Pentateuch against advanced German criticism, "he really goes farther in his abandonment of its Mosaic authorship than Professor Robertson Smith has done and farther than a careful literary criticism requires" (Christian Union February 1, 1883). Again swinging into reverse, he attacked the proposed new Congregational creed and "constituted himself the champion of reactionism in theology." But whichever side of any question he was on, Joseph Cook was never any thing less than oracular, and no one who knew Boston in the 'eighties can imagine a history of American Christianity which did not give him at least a page. Viewed in the perspective of the present, it seems that a short paragraph will do.

One of the results of the growth of more liberal theological ideas within the orthodox churches was a number of heresy trials. Nearly all of these were within the Presbyterian Church. The Congregationalists and Episcopalians developed a considerable degree of theological tolerance, the Methodists were more interested in administrative efficiency than in doctrinal uniformity, the Lutherans were practically unanimous in maintaining their old theology unmodified, the Baptists and Disciples had no ecclesiastical courts for dealing with heresy, and so threshed out the cases of their heretics in their religious papers without decisive results. Two cases of not much more than local importance occurred among the Presbyterians in 1883. Rev. W. W. McLane of Steubenville, Ohio, was put out of his pulpit by the presbytery for writing a book on The Cross in Light of Today, in which he maintained a theory other than that of the substitutionary atonement. Rev. J. W. White, of the presbytery of Huntington, Pennsylvania, was suspended from the ministry for lax views on the physical resurrection and on the atonement and in particular for saying that when Christ died "he was not smitten with the divine wrath, but filled with all the fullness of divine love." But the heresy cases which attained national publicity were those of Doctor Swing and Professors Briggs, H. P. Smith, A. C. McGiffert, Borden P. Bowne, and Hinckley G. Mitchell.

David Swing was minister of the Fourth Presbyterian Church in Chicago. Francis L. Patton, later president of Princeton and always a pillar of orthodoxy, instigated the charge of a general departure from the Calvinistic system; more specifically, the teaching of salvation by works, a "modal Trinity," denial of plenary inspiration, and a leaning toward Unitarianism. Swing was acquitted by his presbytery but, to save his church from embarrassment and secure his own greater freedom, he resigned his pulpit before the appeal of his accusers to the synod was brought to trial. He founded the independent Central Church, housed first in McVicker's Theatre, then in Central Music Hall which was built for the purpose. The new church took on many social activities--charities, classes and industrial schools--and became an "institutional" church. Doctor Swing was a great soul but no theologian.

Charles A. Briggs was a professor in Union Theological Seminary. He had been under suspicion for a long time because of his advocacy of the higher criticism and his publications in this field. But the New York presbytery refused to bring him to trial until compelled to do so by the General Assembly. The trial was held in November, 1892, chiefly on the charge of denying the inerrancy of the Bible, even in the original document. The presbytery acquitted him, but on appeal to the Assembly he was convicted and suspended from the ministry "until he could give satisfactory evidence of repentance." He did not repent but joined the Episcopal church and kept his professorship at Union.

Professor Henry Preserved Smith of Lane Theological Seminary in Cincinnati was also found guilty of denying the inerrancy of the lost original manuscripts of the Scriptures and the sentence was confirmed by the synod and, in 1893, by the General Assembly.

The case of Dr. A. C. McGiffert, a professor in, and later president of, Union Theological Seminary, was recurrent from 1898 to 1900. It never came to a formal trial and the proceedings of the Assembly which called his views in question were confined to condemning some of his opinions, re-affirming the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture, and referring the matter to the New York presbytery. The defendant relieved the church of its embarrassment by withdrawing from its ministry.

The only heresy cases of importance outside of the Presbyterian Church were those of Professors Borden P. Bowne and Hinckley G. Mitchell, Methodists, of Boston University. These came to a head somewhat later, in 1904 and 1905, but the issues were those of the period under consideration. The explosion against Professor Bowne hung fire until the time had passed when it could do him any harm. As a matter of fact, it did a great deal of good. He was a philosopher and theologian supremely concerned to make a reasonable and persuasive statement of the personality of God against whatever mechanistic and pantheistic theories of the universe there might be, and to exalt the worth and freedom of human personality against all mechanistic interpretations of human nature. While he was neither a scientist nor a Semitic scholar, he believed in the principles of evolution and of Biblical criticism. Most of all, he believed in freedom of thought and of scholarship, and was sure that neither the discovery of the late date or composite authorship of any book in the Bible, nor doubt as to the historicity of any or all of the miracles, nor the denial of any particular theory of the atonement, touched the central matters of Christianity. (I speak feelingly of him as a defender of the faith, for his writings were, more than those of any other, an aid to my own faith in the days of my youthful quests and questionings.) Bowne first drew the fire of the conservatives by his spirited defense of his colleague, Professor H. G. Mitchell, who, after teaching without molestation for nearly fifteen years the modern views of the Old Testament which he had learned in Germany, was attacked as a heretic in 1895, again in 1900, and was finally removed in 1905. The trial of Professor Bowne before a "select number" of the New York East Conference resulted in his acquittal by unanimous vote. More than that, it served to clear the air and to make the Methodist Church reasonably safe for scholarship--after Mitchell had been flung to the lions. Some of the staunchest of the moderate conservatives, including most of the real leaders in that church, were on Bowne's side. Dr. J. M. Buckley, the leading Methodist editor and any thing but a radical, was attorney for his defense. But the sacrifice of Mitchell by the bishops the next year made Bowne a sharp critic of the ecclesiastical machinery of his church, and especially of the power of its bishops, for the rest of his life. (See F. J. McConnell: Borden P. Bowne, and H. G. Mitchell: For the Benefit of My Creditors.)

Dr. Daniel Dorchester, himself reasonably conservative, summed the matter up in 1887 by saying: "There is a growing disbelief in the supernatural, and a revolutionary spirit has entered every department of thought and action. Yet-- Divested of the husk of scholasticism and delivered from the spirit of dogmatism, the spirituality of the American churches is many fold greater than one hundred years ago.'" Garrison, The March of Faith (1933), pp. 83-99.

The King's Men

now on Truth Radio four days a month

At 11:05 a.m. PST on Tuesday and Wednesday of every second and fourth week of each month, The Truth Radio Network features live-on-the-air interviews of The King's Men on it's show 'Free Indeed,' hosted by Nicklas Arthur. TRN may be picked up on Satellite C Band GE-1, Transponder 7, Audio 7.58.

Note from 'Free Indeed' host Nicklas Arthur:

The following conclusion came to me after interviewing John Quade on 'Free Indeed.':

Statism is Idolatry

Shadrack, Meshack and Abednego were thrown into the fire because they would not bow to an Idol (a fictious entity). Everyone else who bowed did so under threat and duress of being thrown into that same fire. The children of Israel constantly fell into idol worship--the contemporary Christian might wonder how they could have been so stupid as to bow to ficticious entities made of wood, stone or metal! Peter and the other Apostles were thrown into prison for preaching in Jesus' name; they did not ask the authorities what they were 'legally' permitted to say--rather, Peter proclaimed, "We must Obey God rather than men." Likewise the early Church suffered great persecution because they would simply not bow to the lordship of Caesar.

John Bunyun wrote The Pilgims Progress from prison because he would not take a license from government to preach that which he was commanded by the authority of God. To the contemporary church these are just fanciful stories for the amusement of children; in practice they mean nothing! The modern American Christian thinks nothing of identifying himself with the 'Caesar State' by claiming to be a resident of a fictional 'STATE OF...' or the 'U.S.' Resident defined in law means "thing identified." To be a thing identified (resident) of a fictitious entity or world principality (STATE OF...) is to be in the world and of it.

To bring a congregation (called a church) under the authority of a fictitious world principality can by no means be a determination of separation, but in reality this marriage begets the illegitimate creation of a new fictitious entity, a STATE CORPORATION. The Prophet of old proclaimed, "My people are destoyed for lack of knowledge," but there will be no excuse for willful ignorance. Is it time to "come out of her my people," or do they mock the Word of God, turning it to mere cliche, by spouting an obvious lie, "we are in the world but not of it"?

In New Testament Greek, apolutrosis (ap-ol-oo'-tro-sis);

Redemption

(the act) ransom in full, i.e. (figuratively) riddance, or (specially) Christian salvation: deliverance, redemption.

"Redemption is deliverance from the power of an alien dominion and the enjoyment of the resulting freedom. It involves the idea of restoration to one who possesses a more fundamental right or interest. The best example of redemption in the Old Testament was the deliverence of the children of Israel from bondage, from the dominion of the alien power in Egypt." Zondervan's Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible.

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

Do Not Deceive Children

A mother was once trying to persuade her little son to take some medicine. The medicine was very unpalatable, and she, to induce him to take it, declared that it did not taste bad. He did not believe her. He knew by sad experience, that her word was not to be trusted. A gentleman and friend who was present, took the spoon and said: "James, this is medicine, and it tastes very badly. I should not like to take it, but I would if necessary. Do you have courage enough to swallow something which does not taste good?"

"Yes," said James, looking a little less sulky, "but this is very bad indeed."

"I know it," said the gentleman. "I presume you never tasted anything much worse." The gentleman then tasted of the medicine himself, and said, it is really very unpleasant. "But now let us see if you have not resolution enough to take it, bad as it is."

The boy hesitatingly took the spoon.

"It is, really, rather bad," said the gentlemen, "but the best way is to summon all your resolution and down with it at once, like a man."

James made, in reality, a great effort for a child, and swallowed the dose. And whom will this child most respect, his deceitful mother, or the honest dealing stranger? And whom will he hereafter most readily believe? It ought, however, to be remarked, that had the child been properly governed, he should at once, and without a murmur, have taken what his mother presented. It is certainly, however, a supposable case, that the child might, after all the arguments, refuse to do his duty. What course would then be pursued? Resort to compulsion, but never to deceit. We cannot deceive our children, without seriously injuring them and destroying our own influence. Frank and open dealing is the only safe policy in family government, as well as on the wider theatre of life. The underhand acts and cunning manoeuvres of the intrigue, are sure in the end to promote his own overthrow. Be sincere and honest, and you are safe. The only sure way of securing beneficial results is by virtuous and honorable means.

The 13th Amendment Ruse

Another myth of the Patriot movement is the so-called 'Missing 13th Amendment." Because this amendment forbade 'titles of nobility,' the 'conspiracy theory' behind it stems from the idea that it had to be 'hidden by the lawyers,' and removed from The Constitution, otherwise lawyers wouldn't be allowed in The United States.

This idea, like so many other misconceptions propagated by these 'guru's for hire,' is founded on absolutely false notions.

The false notion is that 'Esq.' or 'esquire,' which lawyers use after their name, is a 'title of nobility.'

A 'knight' is at the bottom of the totem pole in the line of 'titles of nobility.' The word 'esquire' means 'shield-bearer' in the Latin. An esquire was one who attended a knight & carried the knight's shield. In short, an esquire was the knight's 'boy.'

I have but one thing to say to these propagators of myths and Babylonian confusion -- close, but no cigar.

The 3 Points of State Religion

1. The first duty of every State officer is to protect The State, not the people.

2. Other States are temporary enemies; their own people are the permanent enemy.

3. The purpose of taxation is:

a. Confiscation, and control.
b. Redistribution of wealth, and control.
c. Support of Civil Affairs, and control.

A Recent Fax

"This is a test of the emergency fax operating system. This is only a test. If this had been a real emergency, you would have been instructed to load up your fax machine with a new roll of paper to accept a 2,312 page essay on the conspiratorial ties between Monica Luwinsky, Hillary Clinton, Eleanor Roosevelt, Nancy Reagan, Mary Todd Lincoln, Bella Abzug, Ayn Rand, Shirley MacLaine, and countless others. This is some of the best drivel ever from the presses of The New Nation Printing Co., the same folks who brought you "Lincoln's Five Card Stud, One Card Short, 1861-1865."

Lawyers... and other reptiles

Iniquitous Maximus:

"It is a maxim among these lawyers that whatever hath been done before may legally be done again, and therefore they take special care to record all the decisions formerly made against common justice and the general reason of mankind. These, under the name of precedents, they produce as authorities, to justify the most iniquitous opinions..." --Jonathan Swift

-------------------------

Trouble, Trouble, Trouble...

"The trouble with law is lawyers." Clarence Darrow

-------------------------

Question:

How many lawyers does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Answer:

How many can you afford?

-------------------------

The Warmth of Lawyers...

Undistinguished and often shabby in appearance, Ulysses S. Grant did not impress strangers by his looks.

He once entered an inn on a stormy winter night. A number of lawyers, in town for a court session, were clustered around the fire. One looked up as Grant appeared and said, "Here's a stranger, gentlemen, and by the looks of him he's traveled through hell itself to get here."

"That's right," said Grant cheerfully.

"And how did you find things to be down there?"

"Just like here," replied Grant, "lawyers all closest to the fire."

Judicial District

A 'Judicial District' is another one of those man-made fictions designed to obtain jurisdiction where it would not otherwise exist.

One of the 'Patriot blue widget myths' that has done more harm to the unsuspecting and unlearned is the ubiquitous address addition of 'Judicial District.' Typically it would be in the following form:

John Smith
20th Judicial District
666 E. Commerce Circle
Humanville, California
[Zip exempt, TDC]

The premise of using the 'Judicial District' designation is that it puts you into a pre-Civil War/ non-14th Amendment jurisdiction that the current government can't reach. What those who buy into this myth don't know is that a Judicial District, whether pre-Civil War or otherwise, has always been a commercial venue which carries with it the rules and regulations of the commercial government that is in power at the time. On top of that, they are receiving the government benefit of free mail delivery on a 'postal route,' which is also a commercial venue.

Within a 'Judicial District,' you are a 'resident,' thereby leaving 'the country,' and joining 'The State.' It is a foreign venue to the Good and Lawful Christian, who should be 'calling for their First-Class Matter in general delivery' (and always did before Lincoln's War).

Issue the Twenty-nineth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Almighty God vs. the mighty god, Part One...

The Modern Gospel versions, Part Three...

The U. S. Constitution--America's Covenantal Apostacy...

Fictions of law, conclusion...

Bits and Pieces...

Etymologicum Anglicanum ...

Almighty God vs. the mighty god

In this corner, weighing in at a little under three pounds is the Holy Scripture, with references, and containing the words of Christ in red, commonly called God's Word; and in this corner, weighing in at a little over six hundred three score and six tons is the United States Codes, State codes, rules, regulations, bulletins, and registers. This fight is a long fight and there is no set limit on the number of rounds. It is a real knock down, drag 'em out fight, with plenty of bloodshed, intrigue, deceit, double-dealing, exploitation, high finance, corruption, and dialog that will just have you in vinculis. I could not leave out the humor, even though the situation is not humorous. To many people this is just like Monday night football, and they will wait and see what happens to you; or they are sitting on the fence and need a little nudge to fall one way or the other; or they are engaged in a fight already and need to see some light at the end of the tunnel. This is why this essay is being written.

In this essay we will explore essentially four separate, but interlocking, areas:

-One, civil rights;

-Two, traditionally vested rights in common;

-Three, God's Law; and

-Four, administrative law.

Some of these are indeed covered in other articles in The News, but we are concerned here with how each is related to the other, and the fight we find our selves in today.

First, let us define a few terms, for this is the main reason We get what We deserve--we do not know the meaning of words when used in a particular venue and jurisdiction. For example, the word "law."

To a Good and Lawful Christian this means the Word of God--"Lex est ab aeterno --The law is from everlasting." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2143; and,
"They [the Puritans] acknowledged a Divine Sovereignty. They believed that law, if not particular laws, is eternal; and that the American people of themselves have no authority to create law and justice, but the intelligence and authority to legislate in the light of the [law of nature]--discovered in the divine law, conscience, moral principles, ethical doctrines, and even immemorial customs. These things are the common possession [common wealth] of [Good and Lawful Christian M]en; and all [M]en have held them to be given, or deduced from what was given. This puts the sovereignty ultimately in an authority higher than man and makes man responsible to an authority outside of himself. The old name for this authority was God.
"Law is therefore intimately related to religion; and any attempt to sever the relationship is an attempt to divide Man. But however inseparable the relationship, the two must not be confused. This may be made clear in illustration of the statement that an act may be illegal but not immoral, immoral but not illegal, and both illegal and immoral." Clark, The Soul of the Law (1942), pp. 61-62.

Did you notice that law is intimately connected to religion? Notice also, if you will, that the ultimate Authority of Law is outside of man. This is the Good and Lawful Christian's point of view with respect to law and religion. This has serious political implications both for the Christian and non-Christian alike, because it points to the Liberation of both from the imposition of slavery by 'human beings.'

Now let us look at what "law" is to an administrative official and see if it coincides with the concept of Law of the Christian:

"Law has another meaning, however, to administrative officials who exercise wide undifferentiated powers of rule making, application of rules, and determination of controversies. To them, law is whatever is done officially, and so administrative law is whatever is done by administrative agencies. What they do is law because they do it. Whereas we had understood that officials should act according to law, but might act without law or even against law, and the common law afforded remedies to those aggrieved by official action without or against law, yet today there are many who teach that the administrative official, as one recent writer put it, has the touch of Midas. What he touches becomes law when he touches it.
"Such ideas come to us chiefly from the modern Roman administrative regime of continental Europe. In the polity of the eastern Roman empire which was set forth in the law books of Justinian, the emperor was free from laws and his will had the force of a statute." Roscoe Pound, "Administrative Agencies and the Law," American Affairs Pamphlet, April 1946, p. 5.

Is there something said here that We have missed in the past? Dean Pound is saying here that the administrative official's concept of law is that all law is within himself--he creates law from within himself when he exercises it according to the necessity of the situation. In other words, the law of the administrative official does not exist until he "speaks the word."

Let us now open our eyes to see what the Word of God says to the Christian: "In the beginning, God [Elohim] created the heaven and the earth." Genesis 1:1. When God spoke the Word bringing substance in to being, He also spoke the law which governed those things brought into being, else they would probably have not lasted very long. Accordingly then, the administrative official is acting as God does--he creates "substance" in his particular "venue" by speaking a "law" having jurisdiction over that which is created by him, or in his image and likeness, when he speaks his word. Therefore, the following Scripture passage has been literally misapplied and abused by today's modern teaching of it: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." Mt 22:21; Mk 12:17; Lk 20:25. Are you to render to Caesar the firstfruits of your labors, or just the fiction he has created to glorify himself? Indeed this has some very serious political consequences when we look to the mode of exercising such wide discretionary powers by administrative officials, and differentiate them from "judicial powers":

"Informal discretionary action includes initiating, investigating, prosecuting, negotiating, settling, contracting, dealing, advising, threatening, publicizing, concealing, planning, recommending, and supervising." Davis, Administrative Law and Government (1975), pp. 216.
"One would have thought it perfectly obvious that no one employed in an administrative capacity ought to be entrusted with judicial duties in matters connected with his administrative duties. The respective duties are incompatible. It is too much to expect in such circumstances that he should perform the judicial duties impartially. Even if he acts in good faith, and does his best to come to a right decision, he cannot help bringing what may be called an official or departmental mind, which is a very different thing from a judicial mind, as every body who has any dealings with public officials knows, to bear on the matter he has to decide. More than that, it is his duty, as an official, to obey any instructions [codes] given him by his superiors [the contractors of the debt], and, in the absence of special instructions, to further what he knows to be the policy of his Department [owned by the bondholder or other creditor]. His position makes it inevitable that he should be subject to political influences [of the bondholder or other creditor]." Lord Hewart of Bury, in The New Despotism (1929), p. 46. [Insertions and emphasis added.]

This has the flavor of military structure and "law," and indeed it is very difficult to separate the two "jurisdictions" from each other. Notice what is said in the following quote:

"in addition to these systematized rules there is an enormous mass of individual regulations, knowledge of which is limited to the few persons who have to apply them and to those whom they affect.
"[*205] 'It is difficult to form a true conception of the vastness and importance of all this great body of executive regulation law, controlling, as it does the administration of all the executive departments with its rules of action. And when we consider that these rules of action are in general made, construed and applied by the same authority, thus combining quasi - legislative, quasi-judicial and executive authority, we cannot fail to be impressed with the extent of jurisdiction covered by them.' [G. N. Lieber: Remarks on the Army Regulations, p. 47.]" Fairlee, Administrative Powers of the President (1904), 2 Mich.L.Rev. 190, pp. 204-205.

Are deceit and threats compatible with the character of God? Are these the attributes of our Loving Almighty God? "It is of the LORD's mercies that we are not consumed, because His compassions fail not. They are new every morning: great is Thy faithfulness." Lam 3:22-23; and again, "For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." Mal 3:6. We can thus see there is a world of difference between the two.

The administrative official is not a "sojourner" as God is: "The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is Mine; for ye are strangers [*not of the earth] and sojourners with me. And in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemption for the land." Lev. 25:23-24. He therefore is the "resident," the stranger among Good and Lawful Christians. The administrative official is practicing religion based on his own faulty "infinite wisdom," derived solely from within himself, as though he has the hotline to all the accumulated wisdom of the ages. The question you have to ask your Self is, "How does all accumulated human wisdom from the days of Adam compare with the Wisdom of God?" Not a whit. Notice also the merger of powers--quasi-legislative, quasi-judicial, and executive authority all residing within one man or "elite" group of men. Does any one, in their right mind fully compos mentis, still think there is not a religious war? By the way, G. N. Lieber is Guido Norman Lieber, who was Judge Advocate General of the Army and the son of Francis Lieber, author of the Lieber Code, a.k.a. "General Orders No. 100," which gave Lincoln the excuses he needed to prosecute a religious war against all Christian states, thereby overturning the Godly Policy found in the Christian traditions, customs and usages in the states. This leaves a big clue in your understanding of the construction of the federal administrative structure--that being that all administrative agencies are under the commander-in-chief. Where does this impact the individual the most? Let's look at the place where this has the greatest effect:

"When we speak of a person having a civil right we must necessarily refer to a civil right as distinguished from the elemental idea of rights absolute. We must have in mind a rights given and protected by law, and a person's enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by the law which creates it." Nickell v. Rosenfield (1927), 82 CA 369. [Emphasis added.]

Most people do not realize that "civil rights" are the nexus for virtually all their problems:

" 4. Analysis of a Legal Relation. (1) A legal relation (ante, 2) may be termed a Nexus. The converse fact, i.e., that the State force will not interfere to compel or protect the parties, is a non-Nexus. Theoretically, to define the nexus is to state the law sufficiently; practically, the organs of the law are constantly stating a non-Nexus, i.e., that the State force will not interfere.
"(2) A Nexus has two elements: the Persons, and the Interest. The Persons to a Nexus are two. From the side of the person by whom State force is demandable, the Nexus is termed a Right. From the side of the person against whom it is demandable, the Nexus is termed a Burden, Duty, Obligation, or Liability. The former person is termed Obligee, the latter Obligor." Wigmore, A Summary of the Principles of Torts, (Select Cases on the Law of Torts, vol. II, Appendix A.)

Whence came these "civil rights?"

"The Federal Civil Rights Statutes created rights which may be protected by federal courts in the exercise of their normal equity jurisdiction." Progress Development Corp. v. Mitchell (1960), 182 F.Supp. 681, 711. [Emphasis added.]

Any one see any thing here? Notice that these "statutes" created these so-called "civil rights." And although they are called the "civil rights" statutes, they actually are part and parcel of the larger picture called "Reconstruction." Remember, the source of the rights in this case--it says the 1866 Civil Rights Acts, as amended (arbitrary and fickle), created these "rights." For whom? We must go back further in this whole spaghetti mess to find out, because all these individuals collectively were merely carrying out the policy expressed by the infidel and eversor A. Lincoln:

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress any such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom." Excerpt from the proclamation of A. Lincoln, given September 22, 1862. [Emphasis added.]

Did you catch all that? Those who had been "liberated" from their private slavery were now under the public slavery of the person occupying the Executive department, "human resources," which are now the "capital" and "stakeholders" as security for the debt taken on by the "United States" Government during the catastrophic event of Lincoln's War v. All Christian states. Now this has nothing to do with race--but has every thing to do with the destruction of valid state laws. Which raises the political question: "Does the federal executive department have the authority to overturn or abate valid state laws concerning subject-matter wholly and solely without the jurisdiction of the federal executive?" The distinctions between the states are found in their adopted Law and legislation. Therefore, to abate valid state laws is to destroy the states themselves--a political question, and consolidates a congealed mass of chaotic political ooze:

"I have always been apprehensive that through the weakness of the human Mind often discovered even in the wisest and best of Men, or the perverseness of the interested, and designing, in as well as out of Government; Misconstructions would be given to the federal constitution, which would disappoint the Views, and expectations of the honest among those who acceded to it, and hazard the Liberty, Independence and Happiness of the People. I was particularly afraid [sic] that unless great care should be taken to prevent it, the Constitution in the Administration of it would gradually, but swiftly and imperceptably run into a consolidated Government pervading and legislating through all the States, not for federal purposes only as it professes, but in all cases whatsoever: such a Government would soon totally annihilate the Sovereignty of the several States so necessary to the Support of the confederated Commonwealth, and sink both in despotism." Sam Adams, 1789. [Emphasis added.]

Notice the subject-matter and the persons to whom both acts applied are one and the same. The nexus has been established to the Executive department, because the "benefit" of protection or security given by the person in the Executive department is established by the concept of "quasi-contract" and the feudal relation of homage or fealty:

"But to whom may the quasi-contract attach? In order for a quasi-contract to attach, a benefit must be conferred upon the defendant by the plaintiff. The defendant must have displayed an appreciation of the benefit, and accept and retain that benefit so as to make it inequitable for him to retain that benefit without payment for the value of the benefit." Moll v. Wayne County (1952), 332 Mich. 274, 50 N.W.2d 881. [Emphasis added.]
"A person confers a benefit upon another as respects liability in quasi-contracts for restitution if he gives to another possession of or some interest in money, land, chattels, or choses in action; performs services beneficial to or at the request of another; or in any way adds to the other's security or advantage; and he confers a benefit not only where he adds to the property of another but also where he saves the other from expense or loss." Olwell v. Nye & Nissan Co., 173 P.2d 652; Chandler v. Washington Toll Bridge Authority, 137 P.2d 97. [Emphasis added.]

What kind of remedy can one expect in enforcing these rights against the "grantor" or "lord of the manor?" Let us first remember, that these "rights" are all granted to a "persona" which looks to the creator of the right in the relation of homage or fealty; not a Good and Lawful Christian who looks to God, for without them the persona has no existence. The Good and Lawful Christian looks to God's Word for the declaration of his rights vested by Almighty God commencing in Genesis 2:7 and continuing through the Gospel of Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ recorded by our Brothers in Christ. And with regard to redressing violations of "civil rights" against the grantor, read and understand the following:

"A sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends. Car on peut bien recovoir loy d'autruy, mais il est impossible par nature de se donner loy. Bodin, Republique, 1, Chap. 8, ed. 1629, p. 132; Sir John Eliot, De Jure Maiestitis, chap. 3. Nemo suo statuto ligatur necessitative. Baldus, De Leg. et Const. Digna Vox, 2 ed. 1496, fol. 51b, ed. 1539." Kawananakoa v. Polyblank (1907), 205 U.S. 349, 353, 27 S.Ct. 526, 527, 51 L.Ed. 834.

Many of you will scream that government is not sovereign, and you have thousands of court cites that back you up. Great. You miss the fact that this relationship, upon which the civil rights are founded, is created outside of any constitutional limitations. This is easily seen:

"The [Federal] Civil Rights Act is in derogation of the common law and must be strictly construed. Grace v. Moseley, 112 Ill.App. 100." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, "Civil Rights," p. 500.

This derogation has everything to do with how your character is perceived. Since the Good and Lawful Christian Man is not found in any of the Civil Rights Acts, then his character must be different from those who are found therein. The god of the venue will make the determination, and enforce the appropriate law. This will be taken up again later, when we speak of "novation." Therefore your arguments are frivolous and meritless. How do we know this? Let's look at the opinion of United States Attorney General Henry Stanbery:

"A person charged with crime in any of these military districts has rights to be protected, rights the most sacred and inviolable, and among these is the right of trial by jury, according to the laws of the land. When a citizen is arraigned before a military commission on a criminal charge he is no longer under the protection of the law, nor surrounded with those safeguards which are provided in the Constitution. This act, passed in a time of peace, when all the courts, State and Federal, are in the undisturbed exercise of their jurisdiction, authorizes, at the discretion of a military officer, the seizure, trial, and condemnation of the citizen. The accused may be sentenced to death, and the sentence may be executed without a judge. A sentence which forfeits all the property of the accused requires no approval. If it affects the liberty of the accused, it requires the approval of the commanding general; and if it affects his life, it requires the approval of the general and of the President. Military and executive authority rule throughout in the trial, the sentence, and the execution. No habeas corpus from any State court can be invoked; for this law declares, that "all interference, under color of State authority, with the exercise of military authority under this act, shall be null and void."
"I repeat it, that nothing short of an absolute necessity can give any color of authority to a military commander [*200] to call into exercise such a power. It is a power the exercise of which may involve him, and every one concerned, in the greatest responsibilities. The occasion for its exercise should be reported at once to the Executive, for such instructions as may be deemed necessary and proper." 12 Op. Atty-Gen. 182, (1867). [Emphasis added.]

Any one want their day in "court" now? In the case of Good and Lawful Christians, this is done through the irreligious practice of "novation":

"NOVATION. The substitution of a new obligation for an old one, which is thereby extinguished.It is a mode of extinguishing one obligation by another--the substitution, not of a new paper or note, but of a new obligation in lieu of an old one--the effect of which is to pay, dissolve, or otherwise discharge it. McDonnell v. Ins. Co. 85 Ala. 401, 5 South. 120.
"In Civil Law. There are three kinds of novation.
"Third, where the debt [of allegiance] remains the same, but a new creditor is substituted for the old. This is also called a delegatio, for the reason adduced above, to wit: that all three parties [Christ, and government as two separate creditors, and Christians as debtors to either one or the other] must assent to the new bargain." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 2375. [Emphasis and insertions added.]

Notice that "novation" applies to the fleshly character of presumably all, because it is a dogma or doctrine of man, for which Christ displayed the highest contempt, for it is not of Our Father. The fact of the matter which has been overlooked is that Christ never assented to this substitution or novation. Therefore, the obligation is not perfected. Looking, then, to Christ, the Author and Finisher of our Faith, let's see what His Record declares:

"And this is the Father's will which hath sent Me, that of all which He hath given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." John 6:39.
"if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh [*not to man's earthly novation], to live after the flesh." Romans 8:10-12. [*Insertion added].

See the Record at 1 Cor 6:20, 7:23; Gal 3:12-13; Heb 9:12; 1 Pet 1:18-19; 2 Pet 2:1. Is there any assent from Christ? Clearly there is not. Is novation complete? Clearly not, until you answer or move in the fleshly character, demanding "civil rights." It is an "imperfect obligation," which you perfect:

"REI INTERVENTUS. When a party is imperfectly bound in an obligation, he may, in general, annul such imperfect obligation; but when he has permitted the opposite party to act as if his obligation or agreement were complete, such things have intervened as to deprive him of the right to rescind such obligation; these circumstances are the rei interventus; 1 Bell, Com., 5th ed. 328, 329; Burton, Man. 128." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 2861.

Now, can you see why you are constantly badgered by Us not to file Title 42 actions? And why you are badgered by the de facto powers? Once you commence the action, you have novated your self and become the bond servant of another god. How does man sue God for a violation of a right originating in God, belonging to God, and is given for use only to those who belong to Him? How do you summon the Sovereign either into his own court, or a court which depends on his grant of existence as well?

(to be continued next month)

The Modern Gospel Versions

Written and Compiled by The King's Men

The unique thing about these texts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) was, they represented a different manuscript tradition than the Textus Receptus (Received Text). There were, for example, more than 3,000 scribal errors, repeated corrections, mis-spelled words, and simple blunders on every page. But, there were also differences from the KJV that could be critical in some places.

Thus, for example, there is a difference of words in the Greek of John's Gospel, at John 1:18. The KJV reads:

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father. He hath declared Him."

But, the new texts read:

"No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten God, which is in the bosom of the Father. He hath declared Him." From the New American Standard, published by the Holman Foundation, and based upon the Nestle-Aland's version of the texts.

Notice in the KJV the "Son" is changed to "God" in the new texts. This is significant because the new text version is utterly inconsistent with every other similar phrase in Scripture which never cite Christ as the 'begotten God.' A little thought shows that the verse does not even make sense, because this entire section of verses discusses the relationship between the Father and the Son and then suddenly switches to calling the Son - God.

Next, in the new texts, are missing the last 17 verses of Mark. But, here is the strange part.

At the time these texts were written, paper was scarce and expensive. Thus, Scribes used every inch of a sheet for writing, to the extent that where one book of the Bible ends, another begins immediately, with only one line of space in between.

Now, in the new texts, there are two columns of text on each page, but, where the end of Mark comes, there is nearly a full column of blank space on the page. And, if one counts the number of lines and spaces in the open column, one finds out that there is just enough space to insert the missing, last 17 verses of Mark.

What's going on here???

Clearly, there was some doubt in the scribe's mind when he copied this text. He was told to leave the verses out, but just in case some authority told him to put them back in, there was space for them.

Thus, the last 17 verses of Mark had to be in the scribes original copy or he would not have known how much of a column to leave blank!!!

Further, this is not the only place in the text where verses are missing. Again, the verses that tell the story of the woman taken in adultery are missing as well!

Clearly, these differences are important. Read them and compare for yourselves, then think about it.

At any rate, the Count's discoveries launched a search for more manuscripts in the same textual tradition as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and several more turned up, including one version which had an entirely different ending for the Gospel of Mark. The texts were apparently copies created by one school of scribes, and all bore similar errors in the same places, and so on.

But, compared to the thousands of Greek and Hebrew texts that make up the Textus Receptus on which the KJV is based, the new texts were a mere drop in the bucket.

To make a long story much shorter, the new texts constitute less than 2% of all Biblical manuscripts discovered in the history of the world.

The real contradiction comes however when we realize that the 1881 revision committee - where it is handy - inserts readings from the KJV, and in many places of their version it is obviously marked in the marginal notes. For example, check the last 17 verses of Mark in a New American Standard, the Revised Version, or any of the other modern texts based on Westcort and Hort, or the Nestle-Aland version and you will see a reference which reads something like: "Some of the oldest mss. omit from verse 9 through 10." See, The New American Standard edition of the Bible, published by Foundation Press Publications, La Habra, California, and The Lockman Foundation.

What these marginal notes in the new versions imply is, the new version is the best--The King James, that contains the verses without comment or note, is not. This is a very subtle sales tool which this author became a victim of, thirty years ago.

Now, back to the 1881 revision. Remember, the translation was to be merely an update of KJV English. Instead, they used the new texts as the basis of an entirely new English translation. The 1881 committee did a bait and switch and the question must be asked as to why? The answer lies in several factors.

First, Westcott and Hort hated the KJV for reasons that have never been fully explained.

Second, neither Westcott or Hort were Christians by their own admission.

Third, the KJV had more Bible study aids than any text. By producing a new translation based on a new text, this meant that, for a time at least, a handful of scholars were the only source for the original languages beneath the RSV.

Fourth, the KJV text was in the public domain. With a new translation and underlying text, a copyright on the Bible could be issued and this, more than any other reason seems the most likely cause to explain the 1881 committee's action. In the end, it came down to money and fame.

Westcott and Hort justified their tactics by asserting that the new texts were better because they came from older and better manuscripts than the KJV. But, as H.R.A. Scrivenor, and Dean John Burgon of Chichester College so brilliantly proved in very detailed studies, the new texts were neither older than the Received Text tradition, nor are they any better because of all the errors and scribal mistakes, and the obvious editing of the texts.

The controversy continues to rage among Biblical scholars over the quality of the RSV texts, versus the Received Text. In part this is because the new texts clearly bear the marks of being tampered with for sectarian purposes, i.e., in order to advance particular types of doctrine.

Unknown to most Christians, twenty-seven fragments from seven books of the New Testament were found in the Dead Sea caves. These fragments usually consist of not more than a few words of any part of the New Testament and there date is about 50 A.D., i.e., about the time of the Jerusalem Conference that Paul speaks of. These fragments have blown a major hole in schools of Biblical criticism that say that the New Testament did not exist until late in the First or early Second Centuries. To date, no one has refuted the identification of these fragments. Sadly, no one has yet seen fit to make a comparison of these fragments with the Received Text version of the New Testament, or with the new textual version mentioned above.

In the last century, we have seen many new translations of the Bible, all purporting to be better than the King James, none of which are, in fact, better, and the King James is still alive and well.

But, this is not the end of the list of reasons why The Kings Men insist on holding to the KJV in all matters of faith and practice.

Which edition of the Bible one uses determines whether or not legal process, or Lawful process if served under Christian Law, makes all the difference in the world as to whether or not the process one serves will stand, especially in the current 'legal' climate.

First, is the question of the Legal Memory of Man at 1189 A.D. Law that predates 1189 A.D. cannot be challenged in any court in England or America. The Received Text and the Vulgate by Jerome, both pre-date the Legal Memory of Man, and are thus determinative on what Law the Scripture proclaims, and since the Received Text is used in England and America, it has been given 'official' sanction by the United States Congress, [Randy, get the cite from John Joseph to insert here as to when Congress bought the KJV) it is the only work which is authoritative in America.

For this reason alone, none of the new translations have the standing of law in today's courts, for they are all based upon translations of the Bible based upon a text that was not 'officially' recognized by any Christian church until the Revision Committee of 1881. In other words, all the modern translations of the Bible based on the new texts came into being after Lincoln's War. The modern texts, as pointed out above, still harken for corrections and additions, back to the Received Text.

Thus, none of the new translations can qualify as a valid legal reference for law under the Ancient Document Rule, and thus, none are admissible as anything more than mere opinion, which can be over-turned with counter-evidence, such as the KJV.

Second, the modern translations have changed key translations of verses in a way that makes them more 'politically correct.'

Compare, for example, the first clause in Romans 13:1.

In the KJV this verse reads:

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers."

But, the New American Standard (based on the Nestle-Alands text) reads:

"Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities."

Compare 'soul' and 'person.' Which one would a Good and Lawful Christian want to be? A 'person' is a fiction, but a 'soul' is real and substantive under God.

Then, compare the phrases 'be subject unto' with 'be in subjection to' and 'the higher powers' with 'the governing authorities,' and the political correctness of the New American Standard becomes clear.

Third, while a text without the 'thee' and 'thou' words may be more modern and easier to read, do the modern versions really help our understanding when, after we do a comparison in many places, between the New American Standard and King James, we find that by eliminating the thee's and thou's, one no longer knows whether one is dealing with a singular or plural case!!!

It is clear from the whole warp and woof of Christian history, that each apostasy of the church since the time of Moses has been accompanied with a decline in the quality of Christian thought and when the level of ignorance rises in the church, Paul's warning comes back to haunt us:

"That, we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." Ephesians 4:14.

This is seen, with respect to the text of the Scripture, in the fact that, when the Jews returned from captivity in God's Time to Israel, they preferred the Babylonian Talmud, a series of commentaries written in captivity, even though Ezra re-discovered the Law of God in the ruins of Jerusalem.

Again, within one century after Christ, the early Christians began to fall into apostasy and thus became victims of many different translations of the Bible and many new "inspired" writings that we know as the Apocryphal writings.

Further, after the Great Reformation and the advent of the Authorized Version or, King James Version of the Bible, when the Christian church in America began to aposticize after the Colonial and Civil Wars, there came another flood of new versions which continues to this day.

Each of these new versions seeks to exploit the ignorance of Christians by offering a new version that is "easier to read and understand than the King James." Even the New King James version has borrowed a once venerable textual tradition to produce a new version, but it bears no real connection to the original.

All these new versions are, of course, copyrighted for commercial purposes and thus, their prices are higher than a copy of the original King James. This should tell you something of the real motivation of those who publish new versions. In the end, there seems to be a complete lack of concern for the original text and genuine textual scholarship, perhaps because it's not "profitable."

Nothing we can say on the manifold virtues of the Authorized Version will make a dent in this passion for the "new" at the expense of the old, accurate, reliable, and trustworthy text of the Bible. In the lust for the "ease" and "convenience" of the new versions that challenge no one and provide the basis for new interpretations that amount to nothing less than heresy.

The only thing that will check this "rush to easy believism" is the Holy Spirit Himself, who will bring upon the church the rod of correction for its slothfulness:

"Slothfulness casteth into a deep sleep; and an idle soul shall suffer hunger." Proverbs 19:15
"By much slothfulness the building decayeth;" Ecclesiastes 10:18

For the rest of us, we will:

Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. Jeremiah 6:16

The U. S. Constitution-

America's Covenantal Apostasy

by Greg Loren Durand

An Oath is an Act of Worship

Below is the oath of allegiance which every officer of the United States must swear before entering upon their duties and before receiving any salary:

I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same: that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition) defines "oath" as follows:

"Any form of attestation by which a person signifies that he is bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully and truthfully." p. 1071.

The phrase "bound in conscience" is noteworthy here. According to the overall theme of the Bible, a Christian's conscience is to be bound only by the Word of God. "Liberty of conscience" exists only insofar as it is in harmony with God's Law. The great German Reformer Martin Luther understood this principle. When it was demanded of him at the Diet of Worms to recant of his opposition to papal authority, his response was as follows:

"Unless I am refuted and convicted by testimonies of the Scriptures or by clear arguments... I am conquered by the Holy Scriptures quoted by me, and my conscience is bound in the word of God: I can not and will not recant any thing, since it is unsafe and dangerous to do any thing against the conscience. Here I stand. God help me! Amen." quoted by Phillip Sehaff, History of the Christian Church Vol VII, pp. 304-305.

This binding of the conscience was symbolized in the Old Testament in God's instructions to the Israelites to bind His Law on their hands and between their eyes:

Hear, 0 Israel: The LORD your God, the LORD is one! You shall love thee LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you liest down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. (Deuteronomy 6:4-8)

It is interesting to note that the "mark of the Beast" in Revelation 13:16 is said to be on the "right hand" or "forehead" of the enemies of the Lamb of God precisely the same places that God's people were to "bind" His Law. The meaning of Revelation 13:16 is clear: God's enemies have bound their consciences by the ungodly law of the State rather than by His Law and have "kissed" a false god rather than His Son (Psalm 2:12). For this act of rebellion against the prerogative rule of the only true God, eternal damnation is decreed in Revelation 14:9-10:

If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation.

We must not miss the fact that the binding of the conscience to any other law but God's Law is equated in the above passage with false worship, or idolatry; the same sin for which Israel was constantly judged throughout the Old Testament record and for which Jerusalem was eventually destroyed in A.D. 70. The Israelites were God's chosen people; the pagan nations around them had their oaths to their false gods, which God overlooked due to their ignorance (Acts 17:29-30), but the Israelites themselves were to swear their oaths in the Name of the Lord God only (Deuteronomy 6:13-14). However, since the post-resurrection installment of the Lord Jesus Christ as ruler over the nations, God commands "all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained" (Acts 17:30-31). All oaths and pledges of allegiance henceforth must be made explicitly in the Name of Jesus Christ. No longer will God allow the people of the nations to serve any other deity but His Son "whom He has appointed heir of all things" (Hebrews 1:2).

The late Reformed theologian of the nineteenth century, A.A. Hodge, wrote:

"A lawful oath consists in calling upon God.... Hence an oath is an act of supreme religious worship, since it recognizes the omnipresence, omniscience, absolute justice and sovereignty of the Person whose august witness is invoked, and whose judgment is appealed to as final.
It hence follows that it is a sin equivalent to that of worshipping a false god as we swear by any other than the only true and living God; and a sin of idolatry if we swear by any thing or place, although it is associated with the true God.... It is evident that none who believe in the true God can, consistently with their integrity, swear by a false god." A. A. Hodge, The Confession of Faith, p. 287.

Christians must not join with the enemies of God in worshipping at the altar of the "unknown god," which was the capstone of the pagan system that so provoked the spirit of the Apostle Paul (Acts 17:16). Rather, they must do all in their power to tear down such a monument to religio-political pluralism. There can be no religiously neutral pledges of allegiance; all oaths must be made explicitly in the Name of Jesus Christ or they are acts of idolatrous rebellion against God's Kingdom.

The Christian Charters

of the Early Colonies

There was once a time in American history when the people understood this principle of explicit submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in the civil realm. Most of the constitutions of the original thirteen states following the War for Independence required either an explicit oath of faith in Jesus Christ, or at least a public affirmation of the Protestant religion. For example, the Delaware Constitution of 1776 stated the following:

Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust... shall... make and subscribe the following declaration, 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 scripture of the Old and New Testaments to be given by divine inspiration."

Likewise, the Vermont Constitution of 1777 required the following oath:

"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 own and profess the protestant religion."

Because it mentioned only "the christian religion," the oath required by the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 was mild in comparison to many of the other states. However, it should be kept in mind that Puritan Massachusetts in the 1600s had been a self-conscious Christocracy whose law code had been taken nearly word-for-word out of the Old Testament case laws. It therefore would have been unlikely that a candidate for office in Massachusetts in the late 1700s would have interpreted 'the christian religion" to mean anything other than the Protestantism of his forefathers when he swore the following:

"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."

Such explicitly Christian oaths were merely the by-product of an earlier public covenant made by the Puritan and Pilgrim settlers of the colonies over a century before. As the colonists sought to establish a true theocracy in the New World according to the principles of Psalm 2, Psalm 72, Psalm 110, and other passages of Scripture which declare the universal reign of Christ over the nations, they made a public covenant with the God of the Bible and with His Son to build their commonwealths upon biblical Law. The original Americans had a single goal in mind, which was expressed in the words of the Mayflower Compact of 1620: "The Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith." Most, if not all, of the original charters and articles for the colonies were very clear in declaring their purpose to advance God's Kingdom by evangelizing the natives and bringing them to a saving faith in the King of kings, and obedience to His Laws. This was a self-conscious attempt to fulfill the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18. Below are given a few examples which will substantiate this fact:

...[A]ll and every the Subiects of [Charles, King of England]... which shall... inhabite within saide Landes..., shall have and enjoy all liberties and Immunities of free and naturall Subjects within any of the Domynions of Vs.... And... its shall and maie be lawfull... from tyme to tyme, to make, ordeine, and establishe all Manner of Wholesome and reasonable Orders, Lawes, Statutes, and Ordinances, Direccons, and Instruccons, not contrarie to the Lawes of this our Realme of England, as well for setling of the Formes and Ceremonies of Government and Magistracy... and for the directing... of all other Matters and Thinges, whereby our said People... may be soe religiously, peaceablie, and civilly governed, as their good Life and orderlie Conversaccon, maic wynn and incite the Natives of the Country, to the Knowledg and Obedience of the onlie true God and Sauior of Mankinde, and the Christian Fayth, which in our Royalle Intencon, and the Adventurers free Profession, is the principall Ende of this Plantacion.... First Charter of the Mass. Bay Colony, 4 March, 1629.

---------------

Whereas our well beloved and right trusty Subject Caecilius Calvert, Baron of Baltimore, in our Kingdom of Ireland... being animated with a laudable, and pious Zeal for extending the Christian Religion, and also the Territories of our Empire, hath humbly besought Leave of Us, that he may transport, by his own Industry, and Expense, a numerous Colony of the English Nation, to a certain Region, herein after described, in a Country hitherto uncultivated, in the Parts of America, and partly occupied by Savages, having no Knowledge of the Divine Being, and that all that Region, with some certain Privileges, and Jurisdictions, appertaining unto the wholesome Government, and State of his Colony and Region aforesaid, may by our Royal Highness be given, granted, and confirmed unto him, and his Heirs....
Now, That the aforesaid Region... may be eminently distinguished above all other Regions of that Territory.... Know Ye, that... We do... Erect and Incorporate the same into a Province, and nominate the same Maryland, by which name We will that it shall from henceforth be called. Charter of Maryland, 20 June, 1632.

---------------

Forasmuch as it hath pleased the Allmighty God by the wise disposition of his divyne disposition of his divyne pruvidence so to Order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Harteford and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in a uppon the River of Connectecotte and the Lands thereunto adioyneing; And well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to mayntayne the peace and union of such people there should be an orderly and decent Government established according to God, to order and dispose of the affayres of the people at all seasons as occation shall require; doe therefore assotiate and conioyne our selves to be one Publike State or Commonwealth; and doe, for our selves and our Successors and suchas shall be adioyned to us att any tyme hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation toga ther, to mayntayne and presearve the liberty and purity of the gospell of our Lord Jesus which we now professe, as also the disciplyne of the Churches, which according to the truth of the said gospell is now practised among us. Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, 14, Jan., 1639.

The U.S. Constitution

is a Rival Covenant

Although it was the stated intent of the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to merely amend the existing Articles of Confederation, under which the Christian states were united following the War for Independence, the ratification of the Constitution of the United States two years later completely altered the very nature of the American civil structure:

The framers of the Constitution ignored the purposes for which they were delegated; they acted without any authority whatever; and the document, which the warring factions finally evolved from their quarrels and dissensions, was revolutionary....
"Had the idea of a total change [in government] been stated," asserts the trustworthy Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, "probably no state would have appointed members to the Convention.... Probably not one man in ten thousand in the United States... had an idea that the old ship was to be destroyed. Albert J. Beveridge, The Life of John Marshall, Vol. I, pp.323-325.

The document which was birthed by the Convention was indeed "revolutionary," for it scuttled the "old ship" of a civil covenant with Jesus Christ and replaced it with the "secular republic" dreamt of by the apostate James Madison. (Reference: Robert A. Rutland, article: "James Madison's Dream: A Secular Republic," Free Inquiry, September 1983, pp.8-1l). This paradigm shift away from Christianity is glaringly apparent in Article VI, Clause 3:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

In the historical context of the era, the "religious Test" cannot be understood as referring to anything other than the Christian oaths required by the state constitutions. The framers of the Constitution, most of whom were members of the occult religion of Freemasonry who had, in its Lodges, sworn self-maledictory oaths to overthrow Christianity, were well aware of the implications of their actions. A national emergency was said to have been caused by the weaknesses of the existing system under the Articles, and the exaggerated, if not contrived, crisis culminated in the design of a more "energetic government" behind the closed doors of the Convention-- a government in which explicit allegiance to Jesus Christ was relegated to the garbage heap of past 'intolerance." In one fell swoop, the public covenant which the early Americans had made with the True and Living God was swept away and was replaced by an apostate covenant with the "any god" of "religious neutrality." Such was the dawning of a Novus Ordo Seclorum--a New World Order based upon the sovereignty of man's own reason over the revelation of God in His Word.

This crafty "bait and switch' game did not go entirely unnoticed by some of the more observant patriots of that day. At the North Carolina ratifying convention, Henry Abbot complained:

[I]f there be no religious test required, pagans, deists, and Mahometans [Muslims] might obtain offices among us, and... the Senators and Representatives might all be pagans. Henry Abbot, quoted by Jonathan Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution Vol. IV, p. 192.

The word "might," which appears twice in Abbot's above warning, should have been replaced by the more definite "shall," for his observation was much more accurate than perhaps he himself realized. All kings and judges of the earth are instructed in Psalm 2 to "serve the LORD with fear" and to "kiss the Son, lest He be angry" (verses 10-11). It was this same Son who said in Matthew 12:30, "He who is not for Me is against Me." Therefore, the elimination of a public oath to uphold the Kingship and Law of Jesus Christ in the civil realm automatically erected an ethical "wall of separation" between the Crown Rights of Christ and the new Federal Government, thereby barring all Christians from ever holding public office from that time forward. The fact that professing, and no doubt many genuine, Christians continued in the new system to hold such offices does not negate this assertion. It only demonstrates the "intellectual schizophrenia" (the term is R.J. Rushdoony's) among Christians that has plagued the Church for the last two thousand years; the white flag of a "political cease-fire with the enemies of God in the civil realm.

Conclusion

In the words of the great Reformer John Calvin:

"[Civil government] is assigned, so long as we live among men, to foster and maintain the external worship of God, [and] to defend sound doctrine and the condition of the Church....
Its object is not merely... to enable men to breathe, eat, drink, and be warmed... but it is, that no idolatry, no blasphemy against the name of God, no calumnies against his truth, nor other offences to religion, break out and be disseminated among the people... [and] to prevent the true religion, which is contained in the law of God, from being with impunity openly violated and polluted by public blasphemy....
[Civil rulers] have a commission from God, that they are invested with divine authority, and, in fact, represent the person of God, as whose substitutes they in a manner act.... How will they admit iniquity to their tribunal, when they are told that it is the throne of the living God? How will they venture to pronounce an unjust sentence with that mouth which they understand to be an ordained organ of divine truth? With what conscience will they subscribe impious decrees with that band which they know has been appointed to write the acts of God? In a word, if they remember that they are the vicegerents of God, it behooves them to watch with all care, diligence, and industry, that they may in themselves exhibit a kind of image of the Divine Providence, guardianship, goodness, benevolence, and justice. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Chapter XX:2-6.

Contrary to this historically accepted Reformed teaching that it is the duty of the civil ruler, as "God's minister" (Romans 13:4), to preserve the worship of the true God within his jurisdiction and to defend His Church from harm, the so-called "Founding Fathers" presupposed that the American government may ignore its biblical requirement to covenant and submit itself to the enthroned Son of God and yet still claim "the Blessings of Liberty" which only Christ may grant to a people and their posterity. As time went on, the folly of this presupposition became more and more evident as America matured in its "epistemological self-consciousness" (the term is Dr. Gary North's) as an inherently Christ-rejecting nation. One is reminded of Christ's words to the Pharisees in Matthew 15:6 by the U.S. Supreme Court's declaration, "The [religious] test oath is abhorrent to our tradition." (Girourd v. U.S. (1946), 328 U.S. 61, 69). Even more recently, the following decision was handed down which solidified this rejection of Christianity by the Federal Government:

The history of this Nation, it is perhaps sad to say, contains numerous examples of official acts that endorsed Christianity specifically.... This Court, however, squarely has rejected... any favoritism for Christianity that may have existed among the [Puritan] Founders of the Republic. (County of Allegheny v. ACLU (1989), 492 U.S. 573, 604, 501-502, 109 S.Ct. 3086).

The United States' insistence that its citizens render "unqualified allegiance to the nation and obedience to the laws of the land...." (U.S. V. Macintosh (1931), 283 U.S. 605, 625), even when it explicitly refuses to "kiss the Son," creates a dilemma for American Christians, who must understand that "unqualified allegiance' belongs only to the King of kings. It is not the purpose of this article to solve this problem in the minds of the readers or to even offer counsel in this regard, but to merely raise the question that should have been raised by the American churches in the late eighteenth century: Can a nation which turns from God and His Law demand "unqualified allegiance' from its citizens without usurping His throne and inciting His wrath and judgment? Let us conclude with the following warning from the pages of Scripture:

[T]hey have forsaken the covenant of the LORD God of their fathers, which He made with them when He brought them out of the land of Egypt; for they went and served other gods and worshipped them, gods that they did not know and that He had not given to them. Then the anger of the LORD was aroused against this land, to bring on it every curse that is written in this book. And the LORD uprooted them from their land in anger, in wrath, and in great indignation, and cast them into another land, as it is this day."Deuteronomy 29;25-29

For a complete listing of books written by Greg Loren Durand, write to:

Crown Rights Book Company
c/o Post Office Box 769
Wiggins, Mississippi C.S.A. [39577]

Website: http://members.aol.com/crwnrts/resource.htm

Conclusion

This final article on 'Fictions of law,' here presented, is not to be construed to be a dead issue for us. We will, solely by the Grace of God, continue to attempt to fill the unseen vacuum 'created' by those 'wasters' who have taken it upon themselves to subvert the Law through deception, misappropriation and avarice.

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Colossians 2:8

Over the past five or six months, we have partially examined the foundation upon which the natural man's law is built; a foundation of fiction, likened to a house built of straw upon the sand. As Law Professor L. L. Fuller in 1930 so bluntly put it:

"The influence of the fiction extends to every department of the jurist's activity. Yet it cannot be said that this circumstance has ever caused the legal profession much embarrassment. Laymen frequently complain of the law; they very seldom complain that it is founded upon fictions." 25 Illinois Law Review, Dec. 1930 'Legal Fictions' by Univ. of Ill. Law Professor L. L. Fuller.

Fictions of law are the 'natural necessity' resulting from a humanist society of 'lawgivers' attempting, in an inverted way, to mimic Almighty God--the Only True Lawgiver. Their man-created fictions are a manifestation of humanism's explicit or implicit denial of Him. It is the direct application of this depravity which has resulted in the system of 'law' and 'philosophy' that now claims to 'rule the world.'

But, things are not always what they appear to be!! In Truth, these systems do not rule the world, for The Word and The Truth has already spoken of these things:

"And every one that heareth these sayings of Mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell:" Matthew 7:26-27

How does a system founded on fiction continue to stand?

The straw man's straw house--that which has been manifested as illusion of law--has in the past decade claimed more victims than Europe's Black Plague. It is a straw house built upon the sand, propped up and strengthened by the victims themselves.

The natural man's straw house is strengthened by those partaking of his natural trinity: 'recognition,' 'joinder,' and 'prosecution.' These are the props which strengthen it and save it from destruction.

A typical example of the straw man's house is the following:

"Despite repeated statements to the contrary, it is the source of the right sued upon, and not the ground upon which federal jurisdiction is founded, which determines the governing law." Handbook of the Law of Federal Courts.

In short, "the source of the right determines the governing law."

For example, when you claim to have a 'civil right' to do some thing, the federal law merchant becomes the governing law of that thing, because The Civil Rights Acts were 'created' under that law.

Another example would be in the case of 'persons.' Persons are a fictional 'creation' of the 'Roman civil law.' Therefore, when you claim the rights of a 'person,' the governing law becomes the Roman civil law of today's commercial world, to wit:

"person. An indispensable word with varied, overlapping meanings... 1. A human being. This person is the central figure in law....with rights and duties under the law. This is the person, sometimes called an individual, and often referred to in the law as a natural person... Mellinkoff's Dictionary of American Legal Usage (1992), p. 479, by David Mellinkoff (Professor of Law Emeritus, U. C. L. A.).

But when living in Truth, we see a completely different picture. A true picture devoid of illusion and grounded in Truth:

"We avoid the use of the Latin word 'Person,' because it is not Biblical, and is calculated to introduce ideas into Scripture, and thus hinder us in drawing our knowledge out of Scripture." 'The Knowledge of God' (1920), by E. W. Bullinger. page 6,

It becomes clear that 'blind ignorance' is the hinderer of that knowledge, hindering also our avoidance of the evil of 'this world' that continually seeks a host.

We are all sufferers of this malaise, at one time or another. The discomfort caused by this condition can become very painful. When the pain level from it continues to rise, we must remember:

"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou art with me; Thy rod and Thy staff they comfort me." Psalm 23:4

'The commercial world,' along with all of its 'glory,' is, and always has been, the ladder leading to 'the kingdoms of the world.' These kingdoms, which are the idols of fiction producing fallen minds, were offered by Satan to Our Master, and rejected by Him as an example for us:

"Again, the devil taketh Him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth Him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto Him, All these things will I give Thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve." Matt 4:8-10

The 'commercial world' of fictions is the same 'world' that all Christians are mandated not to partake of. It is that 'world' that We are mandated to exercise 'due diligence' upon, and expose for all to see, for it is not of Our Father:

"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." II Jn 1:7-11

Due diligence!! "Who sent you here?" "Who is the Governor of your Law?" "From Whom does the Law you follow, originate?" "In Who's Name do you come?" These are the questions all Christians must ask before giving recognition to, or joining with, anyone or anything.

Without these questions, you receive without knowing. "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse," not only in the eyes of man, but most importantly, in eyes of God. Ignorance of the Law is slothfulness when one fails to exercise due diligence.

"The hand of the diligent shall bear rule: but the slothful shall be under tribute." Proverbs 12:24

We are to follow the lighted path of The Way, The Truth and The Life--and to avoid like the plague the false ways of 'the fictionmakers,' at all times:

"How sweet are Thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth! Through Thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." Ps 119:103-105

The winding road of commerce and its fictions is a long and dangerous path to follow in a crooked world. The straight road of The Truth is an easy path to follow when taking on His full yoke. "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus":

"I have given them Thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I pray not that Thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that Thou shouldest keep them from the evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy word is truth." John 17:14-17

"If the world hate you, ye know that it hated Me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." John 15:18-19

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

"OPINION. 1a. A view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter or particular matters. 1b. Favorable impression or estimation (as of a person): APPROVAL, ESTEEM--usually used negatively or with adjectives of degree. 2a. Belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge: settled judgment in regard to any point: a notion or conviction founded on probable evidence: a belief or view based on interpretation of observed facts and experience [*naturalism]. 2b. Something that is generally or widely accepted as factual: a generally held or popular view. 3a. A formal expression by an expert (as a professional authority) for of his though upon or judgment or advice concerning a matter (decided to obtain a medical opinion of the case). 3b. The formal expression (as by a judge, court, referee) of a legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based; also, the judgment or decision so based. 4. Obs.: estimation in which one is held by others; esp.: favorable reputation. 5. Obs.: EXPECTATION, ANTICIPATION. 6. Platonism: conjecture or belief based on experience and perception." Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1981), vol. II, p. 1582. [Emphasis and *insertions added. Note the lack of Truth and substance--belief, conjecture, feelings experienced--all human.]

"OPINION. 1. What one opines; judgment resting on grounds insufficient for complete demonstration; belief or something as probable or as seeming to one's own mind to be true [*perception of truth, not the truth itself]. (Distinguished from knowledge, conviction, or certainty; occas.= belief.) b. What is generally thought about something. Often qualified by common, general, public, or vulgar, late M.E. 2. (With an and pl.) What one thinks about a particular thing,subject, or point; a judgment formed; a belief, view, notion. (Sometimes denoting a systematic belief, and then = conviction.) 3.The formal statement by an expert or professional man of what he thinks, judges, or advises upon a matter submitted to him; considered advice 1470. 4. Estimation, or an estimate of a person or thing, late M.E. b. spec. Favourable estimate, esteem. (Now only with neg., or such adjs. as great.) 1597. c. Self-conceit, arrogance, dogmatism; or, in good sense, self-confidence. SHAKS. 5. What is thought of one by others; standing; reputation, repute,character, credit (of being so and so, or of possessing some quality) -1705. 6. Expectation; apprehension." Oxford's Universal Dictionary (1955), p. 1376.

"OPINION. In Latin opinio, to think or judge, is the work of the head. SENTIMENT, from sentio, to feel, is the work of the heart. NOTION, in Latin notio, from nosco, to know, is a simple operation of the thinking faculty.

"We form opinions, we have sentiments: we get notions. Opinions are formed on speculative matters; they are the result of reading, experience, and reflection: sentiments are entertained on matters of practice; they are the consequence of habits and circumstances; notions are gathered upon sensible objects, and arise out of the casualties of hearing and seeing. One forms opinions on religion, as respects its doctrines; one has sentiments on religion as respects its practice and its precepts. The heathens formed opinions respecting the immortality of the soul, but they amounted to nothing more than opinions. Christians entertain sentiments of reverence toward God as their creator, and of dependence upon Him as their preserver.

From Crabbe's English Synonymes (1904), p. 644:

"Opinions are more liable to error than sentiments. The opinion springs from the imagination, and in all cases is but an inference or deduction which falls short of certain knowledge: opinions, therefore, as individual opinions, are mostly false; sentiments, on the other hand, depend upon the moral constitution or habits; they may, therefore, be good or bad according to the character or temper of the person. Notions are still more liable to error than either; they are the immatured decisions of the uninformed mind on the appearances of things. The difference of opinion among men, on the most important questions of human life, is a sufficient evidence that the mind of man is very easily led astray in matters of opinion: whatever difference of opinion there may be among Christians, there is but one sentiment of love and good will among those who follow the example of Christ, rather than their own passions: the notions of a Deity are so imperfect among savages in general, that they seem to amount to little more than an indistinct idea of some superior agent [*the Masonic idea of the Architect of the Universe--a heathen concept].

"Time wears out the fictions of opinion, and doth by degrees discover and unmask that fallacy of ungrounded persuasions, but confirms the dictates and sentiments of nature. Wilkins.

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

The Way to Settle Difficulties

Two neighbors (who were brothers by marriage), had a difficulty respecting their partition fence. Although they had mutually erected a substantial fence four and one-half feet in height on the line separating the sheep pasture of one, from the grain field of the other, yet the lambs would creep through the crevices and destroy the grain.

Each asserted it to be the duty of the other to chink the fence; after the preliminaries of demands, refusals, threats, challenges, and mutual recriminations, they resolved to try the glorious uncertainty of the law. They were, however, persuaded by their friends to the more amicable mode of submitting the defence to the final determination of a very worthy and intelligent neighbor, who was forthwith conducted to the scene of the trouble, and in full view of the premises; each party in turn, in a speech of some length, asserted his rights, and set forth the law and the facts; at the conclusion of which the arbitrator very gravely remarked-- "Gentlemen, the case involves questions of great nicety and importance, not only to the parties in interest, but to the community at large, and it is my desire to take suitable time for deliberation, and, also, for advisement with those who are learned in the law, and most expert in the customs of neighbors; in the mean time, however I will just clap a billet or two of wood into the sheep holes;" --and in ten minutes time, with his hands, he effectually closed every gap.

The parties silently retired, each evidently heartily ashamed of his own folly and obstinacy. The umpire has never been called upon to pronounce final judgment in the case--so the law remains unsettled to this day.

Written and compiled by Randy Lee

The Christian state

"a state does not become Christian when it incorporates the name of Christ in its constitution or opens the sessions of Congress with prayer; neither is a state Christian when certain theological ideas are embodied in its legislation and certain ecclesiastical functionaries dictate the policy of cabinets. In any real sense a state is Christian when it possesses the Spirit of Christ and seeks certain great Christian ends in and through its life and service." S. Z. Batten, The Christian State (Philadelphia: Griffith and Rowland, 1909), p. 408.

The Kind We Don't Want

"When a minister is in search of popularity and a big salary, I don't blame him for leaving the Christian Church and going to some other denomination. He can't be a success in the Christian Church, and is not needed among us. We want ministers whose chief aim is to save souls--ministers who are willing to preach the Gospel to the poor, even for a small salary. Men who after large salaries may get their reward. I honor the minister who labors to save souls, and will not leave a field of usefulness for 'filthy lucre's sake.'"--Rev. H. M. Eaton, Herald of Gospel Liberty (1908), p. 209.

The Christian Name

"How pleasant is the name Christian! It is expressive of much which is of interest to us. It is worn out of respect to the great Redeemer--Christ, the Anointed--anointed to be a Prince and a Saviour. The name is adopted as expressive of peculiar attachment to Christ, and of humble dependence upon Him for salvation. No other Name can be equally expressive of the same idea.

"Friend is a name which may express friendship with Christ and man. Disciple may intimate that one follows, learns of, and loves Christ. But Christian comprehends every idea embraced in the others, and also has this advantage--under no circumstances can its import be mistaken. The Christian, like the Lord, is anointed from above. The spirit and power of the Highest is given him, by measure, from above. He is anointed for the especial work of saving the lost world, and bringing it back to God. He is in the world, though not of it; but, in a higher sense, he is in Christ--dedicating himself, body, soul, and spirit to Him in whom he lives.

"Probably many true Christians have adorned other and sectarian names. It is a misfortune, however. They are not expressive of Christian sentiment or work. Take the name Congregational--it only expresses a democratic idea--that the majority is right, but is awfully destructive of every thing which is Christian, if the majority is wrong. The name Baptist comprehends but a single idea-- immersion in water. But the name Christian covers the idea of full faith in all which Christ said, did, or suffered.

"Another thought--the name was divinely given as the distinctive family name of the church. The child who discards the name which his father gave him does not show particular respect to the father in so doing. He calls in question a father's judgment. Is not the judgment of God questioned when His people forsake the name He gave them, or make another of their adoption more prominent? Let us reflect!"--Rev. B. F. Carter, Herald of Gospel Liberty, February 17, 1859, in The Centennial of Religious Journalism (1908), pp. 162-163.

Serving Two Masters-

"3126. MAMMON. masc. noun. Wealth, the personification of riches. Mammon, the comprehensive word for all kinds of possessions, earnings, and gains, a designation of material value, the god of materialism. In Luke 16:9, 11, it denotes riches, equivalent to ploutos (4149), wealth. In Matt. 6:24 and Luke 16:13, the Lord personifies mammon, the god of materialism." Zodhiates, Complete Word Study of The New Testament (1994), p. 941.

Licenses are for the Lawless

License. "An authority to do a particular act or series of acts on another's land without possessing any estate therein." Cook v. Stearns, 11 Mass. 533; Wolfe v. Frost, 4 Sandf.Ch.(N.Y.) 72; Clarke v. Glidden, 60 Vt. 702, 15 A. 358; 1 Washb.R.P. 398." 2 Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914) 1974.

Education and Religion

"Education should never be divorced from pure religion. United they become the voice of heavenly wisdom, which 'utters her voice' loudly in our streets and plants the standard of Biblical Christianity 'in the openings of the gates,' as the rallying point of safety for the youth of our country."--Rev. D. P. Pike, in the Herald of Gospel Liberty, May 4, 1855, from The Centennial of Religious Journalism (1908), p. 141.

God--Nothing

"The name of God means power, and we may read, Power said, 'Let there be light, and there was light.' The infidel denies that God, or power, created all things, but admits that nothing produced all things. Thus the unbeliever is driven to the absurdity that his nothing is greater than all worlds--is as powerful as power itself. The infidel, therefore, is more credulous than the Christian, ascribing his own, and all other existences, to nothing; and as the producer is at least equal to what it produces, he is at least nothing, and by his own probabilities, is on the way to make himself less than nothing."--Rev. O. J. Wait, Herald of Gospel Liberty, August 6, 1857, cited in The Centennial of Religious Journalism (1908), p. 157.

Liberum Tenementum

484. General issue in trespass to real property.--In trespass to real property, a freehold or mere possessory right in the defendant may be given in evidence under the general issue, though it is often advisable to plead liberum tenementum." Trial of Title to Land (1882), page 303, Cooley v. O'Connor, 12 Wall. 391-399.

Liberum Tenementum. "In common law pleading, a plea of freehold. A plea by the defendant in an action of trespass to real property that the locus in quo is his freehold, or that of a third person, under whom he acted." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 919.

Issue the Thirtieth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Maintaining general delivery, Part One...

Returning Unwanted Letters...

The Money Question...

A Short History on Land Titles...

Almighty God vs. the mighty god, Part Two...

Bits and Pieces...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Maintaining general delivery

With the increasing attempts by Postmasters and Postal Legal Counsels to deny general delivery to those who have a vested and Inherited Right in general delivery, the two letters below will hopefully be of assistance to those who may be confronted with such an attempt.

In the first letter, note the subtleties of commercial and military terms used by the Manager, and the importance of rebutting his manufactured presumptions in the letter I have composed on Page two.

For additional information on maintaining general delivery, there is a 'Postal Pack' with a 90 min. audio tape available, and we will continue on this subject in Part Two next month.

United States Postal Service
March 30, 1998

Mr. John Robert Murdock
C/O General Service
56 Main St.
Bennicia, Pa 18504-9998

Dear Mr. Murdock:

This will serve as response to your inquiry, dispatched to Mr. Matthew Johnson, Postmaster of Philadelphia Pa. Mr. Johnson has referred the matter to me for disposition, and I am now responding to you as the Manager of the Benecia Station.

I have enclosed a photo copy (single page) of a Postal Manual entitled "Domestic Mail Manual" which basically governs the Postal Service in many matters, this being just one. I have also taken the time to highlight excerpts from that one page, which deals/interprets with General Service, so that you may be able to comprehend the decision given.

I realize, and understand that you have been receiving this General Service for a period of time now. Considering all that you have stated in your correspondence, I aim to grant you an extended period of the same service so that you can begin to prepare to receive your mail in some other manner. I am willing to extend you an additional 90 days from the writing of this correspondence. I will notify the Main Street station as well, and I sincerely hope that the additional time frame given to you, will enable you to arrange your mailing matters as should be.

Sincerely;

R. J. Finnegan

R. J. Finnegan
Manager, Benecia Station
100 Jones St.
Benecia, Pa 18504-9998

(Return Letter)

From:

John Robert: Murdock
to be called for in general delivery
Benecia, Pennsylvania

On the < > day of the < > month in the
Nineteen hundred ninety-eighth year of
Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ

To:

Postmaster Matthew Johnson
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Greetings in the Name of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ.

After having received postal matter in general delivery marked March 30, 1998 from R.J. Finnegan, Manager of Benecia Station, with a copy of the (1/98) version of D930 (see attached), I was deeply disturbed by its contents. I find that R.J. Finnegan expressed many presumptions and statements in its contents that are based on facts not in evidence.

These erroneous presumptions on his part are as follows:

1. That I am a customer of The Postal Service.

2. That I have been receiving 'General Service.'

3. That calling for my First-Class Matter in general delivery is a 'service.'

4. That transients are the same as customers.

5. That I am a Mr. or Mister.

I will here address these presumptive errors in his beliefs:

1. I am not a customer of The Postal Service. I am transient and homeless, and have always received my First-Class Matter in general delivery for fellowship between the body of believers and myself, and not for any commercial purposes.

2. I have never received 'General Service.' I have always exercised my vested Right in general delivery. These traditionally vested and Inherited Rights in general delivery established by the church existed prior to the creation of The Postal Service and The Post Office Department. Therefore, the question arises: can the created deny or disparage the creator?

3. Being a Good and Lawful Christian calling for my First-Class Matter in general delivery is not a service delivered by The Postal Service, but an extended governmental duty of The Postal Service from The Post Office Department. History and the nonexistence of legislation concerning general delivery clearly shows this.

4. Please note that at D930, 1.1(a), general delivery is for transients and customers not permanently located. 1.1 (b) and thereafter addresses the restrictions to customers only, not transients or the homeless. Please note the significance of that in Law.

5. Being a Good and Lawful Christian and ministerial officer of Christ, I do not attach, or allow to be attached, commercial designations such as Mr. to my Christian Appellation, for to do so is an abomination unto my Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, Who I minister for.

Since I am a sojourner on the land, homeless and transient, and not a resident with a fixed address, I would draw your attention to Postal Bulletin 21877 (see circled area attached) wherein it is directed that I am to receive indefinite general delivery.

Since R.J. Finnegan's decision to deny my vested and Inherited Right in general delivery through his erroneous presumptions is based on facts not in evidence, I pray that you will intercede on my behalf as Postmaster in the Philadelphia area representing not only The Postal Service, but The Post Office Department under The Postmaster General, and reconsider and reverse R.J. Finnegan's decision in order that I can continue to fellowship with the body of believers and live under The Law of Peace.

With having no other way of accessing my First-Class Matter except in general delivery, I would appreciate it if you would direct A.J. Finnegan to not violate my vested and Inherited Right to call for my First-Class matter at the main post office at Benecia.

God's Richest Blessings upon you,

John Robert: Murdock

Returning Unwanted Letters

Below and to the right you will find the most common stamps used by the post office to return letters. You can make a photocopy of one, or all of them, and take the copy to a stamp maker. These impressions are not copyrighted by the Postal Service. They are available for everyone's use, but they must be used honestly.

For those in general delivery, and the letter received addresses you improperly, the most common type of return would be "Not Deliverable As Addressed," and if the mailbox and numbers have been removed from the dwelling-house, and a letter is left on the porch, "No Such Number" or "Insufficient Address" can be used.

"No Such Person At This Address" should no longer be used because it does not abate their so-called "due process." The above three designations do.

To return the letter, stamp the front, check the appropriate box, and simply drop it in a remote dropbox in another town.

The Money Question

Inheritance of Illusion or Illusion of Inheritance

Inheritance of Right or Right of Inheritance

by John Joseph

This article is one I know is a hot topic in the patriot world, and so I will deal with this issue as quickly as possible, leaving the ultimate decision to you as to what the solution ought to be, if in fact a solution is to be sought at all. I will tell you this from the outset: that unless you are right with God, in Christ, there is no solution. You may think you understand the money question, through and through, but you will never have Inheritable Right without Christ, for Christ Jesus said, "without Me, ye can do nothing."

The money question is a side issue wherein, although it impacts upon all of us, unless you possess that quality of a Good and Lawful Christian, you have nothing, and, in Truth and deed, are nothing--you are civilly dead. Both outlaws and bankrupts are civilly dead. Your relationship to God our Father, by, in and through Christ Jesus, is first and foremost just as He told us:

"But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." Matthew 6:33. See also Luke 12:31.

To the limited secular mind this is such a narrow-minded view of things, especially of this one issue. To put these objections to rest, Christ Jesus Himself addressed this very issue:

"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Mt 7:13-14.
"Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and He shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in Thy presence, and Thou hast taught in our streets. But He shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity." Luke 13:24-27.
"My son, fear thou the LORD and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change: For their calamity shall rise suddenly; and who knoweth the ruin of them both?" Proverbs 24:21-22.

That modern calamitous open mind of the pagan is clearly the path to destruction. To whom do you entrust such matters: the statutory guru or Christ Jesus? How dangerous that modern open mind really is. It is strange that those who espouse open mindedness have such a closed mind when their own opinions are challenged. The same is true of those who espouse tolerance of all religions--they are open minded to all until Christianity is opened to them. "Verily, they have their reward."

Having addressed the modern objections squarely, let us now proceed to the matter at hand--money. What is it? what is it for? what does it do? how does it accomplish its appointed task?

First, for all Good and Lawful Christians, money is what God our Father declared it to be among us. This is not a matter of opinion, speculation, conjecture, sentiment, view, or personal judgment. He did not declare currency, debit cards, credit cards, checks, notes, bills, negotiable instruments, legal tender, barcodes, electronic bytes or bits to be Lawful Money among us. Those 'legal fictions' are one of the many evil things that come out of the man and defile him. If you believe otherwise, then please either reconsider your position or "prove all things," to quote Scripture again. Remember, if you try to mix and match Scripture with your human concepts, you are fatally a sinner without repentance and offer no true solution:

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24.
"If ye love Me, keep My commandments." John 14:15.
"He that is not with Me is against Me; and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth abroad." Matthew 12:30.

It is a given that you will serve either God or mammon, Christ or lust, but you cannot do both simultaneously:

"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 9:9.

Second, we must define a term which has lost its original meaning among us, that term being "lawful." This term is specific in Law, relating to our present discourse, and will reveal much to us that has been removed from our learning, knowledge and Christian ways:

"LAWFUL. The principal distinction between the terms 'lawful' and 'legal' is that the former contemplates the substance of law, the latter the form of law. To say of an act that it is 'lawful' implies that it is authorized, sanctioned, or at any rate not forbidden, by law. To say that it is 'legal' implies that it is done or performed in accordance with the forms and usages of law, or in a technical manner. In this sense 'illegal' approaches the meaning of 'invalid.' For example, a contract or will, executed without the required formalities, might be said to be invalid or illegal, but could not be described as unlawful. Further, the word 'lawful' more clearly implies an ethical content, than does 'legal.' The latter goes no further than to denote compliance, with positive, technical, or formal rules; while the former usually imports a moral substance or ethical permissibility. A further distinction is that the word 'legal' is used as the synonym of 'constructive,' which 'lawful' is not. Thus 'legal fraud' is fraud implied or inferred by law, or made out by construction. 'Lawful fraud' would be a contradiction in terms. Again, 'legal' is used as the antithesis of 'equitable.' Thus, we speak of 'legal assets,' or 'legal estate,' etc., but not of 'lawful assets,' or 'lawful estate.' But there are some connections in which the two words are used as exact equivalents. Thus, a 'lawful' writ, warrant, or process is the same as a 'legal' writ, warrant, or process." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 1032.

A piece of paper currency, note, bill, check, debit card, credit card, or negotiable instrument is only prima facie evidence of the substance, but it is not the substance itself. It is notice that deceit is taking place and a further diligent inquiry must be made by the one about to be deceived. Electronic signals are not evidence of any thing, not even debts. See Clomon v. Jackson (1993), 988 F.2d 1314 (2d Cir.). The virtual world is a world of illusion and an illusion of a world.

When we say 'lawful money,' what is it we are really saying? We are saying that the substance has precedence over form. The crux of the matter, which no one has ever touched on concerning the money issue is--what is the substance? Is it the metal? On the surface this appears to be the case. But on closer examination, the metal is only a part of the answer. So what is the rest? Christ Jesus addressed this issue as follows:

"They say unto Him, Caesar's. Then saith He unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." Matthew 22:21.

We are all very familiar with this passage from Scripture. But what is it Christ Jesus is saying?

He is actually touching on the question of 'being.' And our esteemed Brother Jonathan Edwards in his lecture on being (obtainable in its entirety from the Christian Liberty Library under the filename of EDWDSBNG.ZIP) gives us a clue as to what it is Christ is saying:

Of Being

"That there should absolutely be Nothing at all, is utterly impossible. The mind, let it stretch its conceptions ever so far, can never so much as bring itself to conceive of a state of perfect Nothing. It puts the mind into mere convulsion and confusion, to think of such a state: and it contradicts the very nature of the soul, to think that such a state should be. It is the greatest of contradictions, and the aggregate of all contradictions to say that THING should not be. It is true, we cannot so distinctly show the contradiction in words; because we cannot talk about it, without speaking strict nonsense, and contradicting ourselves at every way: and because Nothing is that, whereby we distinctly show other particular contradictions. But here we are run up to our first principle, and have no other to explain the nothingness, or not being of Nothing by. Indeed we can mean nothing else by Nothing, but a state of absolute contradiction; and if any man thinks, that he can conceive well enough how there should be Nothing, I will engage, that what he means by Nothing, is as much Something, as any thing that he ever thought of in his life; and I believe, that if he knew what Nothing was, it would be intuitively evident to him that it could not be.--Thus we see it is necessary that some being should eternally be. And it is a more palpable contradiction still to say, that there must be Being somewhere, and not otherwhere, for the words Absolute Nothing, and Where, contradict each other. And, besides, it gives as great a shock to the mind, to think of pure Nothing being in any one place, as it does to think of it in all places: and it is self-evident, that there can be Nothing in one place, as well as in another; and if there can be in one, there can be all. So that we see that this Necessary, Eternal Being must be Infinite and Omnipresent.
"This Infinite and Omnipresent being cannot be solid. Let us see how contradictory it is, to say that an Infinite being is solid; for solidity surely is nothing, but resistance to other solidities.--Space is this necessary, eternal, infinite, and omnipresent being. We find that we can, with ease, conceive how all other beings should not be. We can remove them out of our minds, and place some other in the room of them; but Space is the very thing, that we can never remove, and conceive of its not being. If a man would imagine Space any where to be divided, so as there remains Space between, not with standing, and so the man contradicts himself. And it is self-evident I believe to every man, that Space is necessary, eternal, infinite and omnipresent. But I had as good speak plain: I have already said as much as, that Space is God. And it is indeed clear to me, that all the Space there is, not proper to body, all the Space there is without the bounds of Creation, all the Space there was before the Creation, is God himself; and no body would in the least pick at it, if it were not because of the gross conceptions that we have of Space.
"A state of absolute nothing is a state of absolute contradiction. Absolute nothing is the aggregate of all the contradictions in the world: a state, wherein there is neither body, nor spirit, nor space, neither empty space nor full space, neither little nor great, narrow nor broad, neither infinite space nor finite space, not even a mathematical point, neither up nor down, neither north nor south, (I do not mean, as it is with respect to the body of the earth, or some other great body,) but no contrary points, positions or directions, no such thing as either here or there, this way or that way, or any way. When we go about to form an idea of perfect Nothing, we must shut out all these things: we must shut out of our minds both space that has something in it, and space that has nothing in it. We must now allow ourselves to think of the least part of Space, be it ever so small. Nor must we suffer our thoughts to take sanctuary in a mathematical point. We go to expel being out of our thoughts, we must be careful not to leave empty space in the room of it; and when we go to expel emptiness from our thoughts, we must not think to squeeze it out by any thing close, hard and solid; but we must think of the same, that the sleeping rocks do dream of; and not till then, shall we get a complete idea of Nothing.
"When we go to enquire, Whether or no, there can be absolutely Nothing? we utter nonsense, in so enquiring. The stating of the question is nonsense; because we make a disjunction where there is none. Either Being, or absolute Nothing, is no disjunction; no more than whether a triangle is a triangle, or not a triangle. There is no other way, but only for there to be existence: there is no such thing as absolute Nothing. There is such a thing, as Nothing, with respect to this ink and paper: there is such a thing, as Nothing, with respect to this globe of earth, and with respect to this Universe. There is another way, beside these things, having existence; but there is no such thing, as Nothing, with respect to Entity, of being, absolutely considered. We do not know what we say, if we say, that we think it possible in itself, that there should not be Entity.
"And how doth it grate upon the mind, to think that Something should be from all eternity, and yet Nothing all the while remain conscious of it. To illustrate this: Let us suppose that the World had a being from all eternity, and had many great changes, and wonderful revolutions, and all the while Nothing knew it, there was no knowledge in the Universe of any such thing. How is it possible to bring the mind to imagine this? Yea, it is really impossible it should be, that any thing should exist, and Nothing know it. Then you will say, If it be so, it is, because Nothing has existence but in consciousness: No, certainly, now where else, but either in created or uncreated consciousness.
"Suppose there were another Universe, merely of bodies, created, at a great distance from this; created in excellent order, harmonious motions, and a beautiful variety; and there was no created intelligence in it, nothing but senseless bodies, and nothing but God knew any thing of it. I demand where else that Universe would have a being, but only in the Divine consciousness? Certainly, in no other respect. There would be figures, and magnitudes, and motions, and proportions; but, where else, except in the Almighty's knowledge? How is it possible there should be?--But then you will say, For the same reason, in a room closely shut up, which nobody sees, there is nothing, except in God's knowledge.--I answer, Created beings are conscious of the effects of what is in the room; for, perhaps, there is not one leaf of a tree, nor a spire of grass, but what produces effects, all over the Universe and will produce them, to the end of eternity. But any otherwise, there is nothing in a room to shut up, but only on God's consciousness. How can any thing be there, any other way? This will appear to be truly so, to any one who thinks of it, with the whole united strength of his mind. Let us suppose, for illustration, this impossibility, that all the spirits in the Universe were, for a time, deprived of their consciousness, and that God's consciousness, at the same time, were intermitted. I say the Universe, for that time, would cease to be, of itself; and this not merely, as we speak, because the Almighty cold not attend to uphold it; but because God would know nothing of it. It is our foolish imagination that will not suffer us to see it. We fancy there may be figures and magnitudes, relations and properties, without any one knowing of it. But it is our imagination hurts us. We do not know what figures and properties are.
"Our imagination makes us fancy, that we see shapes, and colours, and magnitudes, though nobody is there to behold it. But to help our imagination, let us thus state the case: Let us suppose the creation deprived of every ray of light, so that there should not be the least glimmering of light in the Universe. Now all will own, that, in such case, the Universe would really be immediately deprived of all its colours. NO one part of the Universe is any more red, or blue, or green, or yellow, or black, or white, or light, or dark, or transparent, or opake. There would no visible distinction, between the Universe and the rest of the incomprehensible void: yea, there would be no difference, in these respects, between the Universe and the infinite void; so that any part of that void would really be as light and as dark, as white and as black, as red and as green, as blue and as brown, as transparent and as opake, as any part of the Universe: so that, in such case, there would be no difference, in these respects, between the Universe and Nothing. So also, there would be no difference, between one part of the Universe and another: all, in these respects, is alike confounded with, and undistinguished from, infinite emptiness.
"At the same time, also, let us suppose the Universe to be altogether deprived of motion, and all parts of it to be at perfect rest. Then, the Universe would not differ from the void, in this respect: there would be no more motion in the one, that in the other. Then, also, solidity would cease. All that we mean, or can be meant, by solidity, is resistance; resistance to touch, the resistance of some parts of space. This is all the knowledge we get of solidity, by our senses, and, I am sure, all that we can get, any other way. But solidity shall be shown to be nothing else, more fully, hereafter. But there can be no resistance, if there is no motion. One body cannot resist another, if there is no motion. One body cannot resist another, when there is perfect rest among them. But, you will say, Though there is no actual resistance, yet there is potential resistance: that is, such and such parts of space would resist upon occasion. But this is all that I would have, that there is no solidity now; not but that God could cause there to be, on occasion. And if there is no solidity, there is no extension, for extension is the extendedness of solidity. Then, all figures, and magnitude, and proportion, immediately cease. Put, then, both these suppositions together: that is, deprive the Universe of light, and motion, and the case would stand thus, with the Universe: There would be neither white nor black, neither blue nor brown, neither bright nor shaded, pellucid nor opake, no noise nor sound, neither heat nor cold, neither fluid nor solid, neither wet nor dry, neither hard nor soft, nor solidity, nor extension, nor figure, nor magnitude, nor proportion, nor body, nor spirit. What, then, is to become of the Universe? Certainly it exists no where, but in the Divine mind. This will be abundantly clearer to one, after having read what I have further to say of solidity, etc.: so that we see that a Universe, without motion, can exist no where else, but in the mind--either infinite or finite.
"Corollary. It follows from hence, that those beings, which have knowledge and consciousness, are the only proper and real, and substantial beings; inasmuch as the being of other things is only by these. From hence, we may see the gross mistake of those, who think material things the most substantial beings, and spirits more like a shadow; whereas, spirits only are properly substance." Jonathan Edwards in 1719-1720? from Benjamin Franklin and Jonathan Edwards: Selections from their Writings (1920), edited by Carl Van Doren, pp. 222-227. [Emphasis added.]

It is Brother Edwards' last statement which is key to the money question. We should all ponder that statement and thoroughly understand it before we move on. Too many people have placed their emphasis on the metals constituting the money, but have given no thought as to the spiritual world which rules the physical world. The Good and Lawful Christian already has the knowledge and knows "that the law is spiritual:" Romans 7:14. Therefore, the substance of Spirit is governed by the spiritual Law. To think of the opposite is what Brother Edwards was saying about absolute nothing--the ultimate contradiction which man can never resolve. As a matter of fact, it has been stated elsewhere:

God--Nothing

"The name of God means power, and we may read, Power said, 'Let there be light, and there was light.' The infidel denies that God, or power, created all things, but admits that nothing produced all things. Thus the unbeliever is driven to the absurdity that his nothing is greater than all worlds--is as powerful as power itself. The infidel, therefore, is more credulous than the Christian, ascribing his own, and all other existences, to nothing; and as the producer is at least equal to what it produces, he is at least nothing, and by his own probabilities, is on the way to make himself less than nothing."--Rev. O. J. Wait, Herald of Gospel Liberty, August 6, 1857, cited in The Centennial of Religious Journalism (1908), p. 157.

What is the substance of the Spirit? This raises the question of Source, Cause, and Origin of all things:

"Scire proprie est rem ratione et per causam cognoscere--To know properly is to know a thing by its cause and in its reason." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2162.
"Causa et origo est materia negotii--The cause and origin is the substance of the thing; the cause and origin of a thing are a material part of it." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 278; Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2127.

We can see then that Christ Jesus was raising the issue of being: What is the source, cause and origin of the inscription on the metal coin? Therefore, give to Caesar that which he is the source, cause, and origin of; and to God those things for which He is the Source, Cause, and Origin. For the Good and Lawful Christian, everything he touches is to have its Source, Cause and Origin in Christ Jesus, and not in a foreign source or venue:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The Same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." John 1:1-4. [Emphasis added.]

"For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him: And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things He might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in Him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of His cross, by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself; by Him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven." Colossians 1:16-20. [Emphasis added.]

The metal is sustained by the Power of God Himself. Caesar stamped the coin to show he was the maker of the coin, but did he obtain or retain jurisdiction over the metal of which the coin consists? Certainly not. The metal being sustained by His Power could be changed into something base, like lead or aluminum, depending on what His Law declares, and His Law does not change. Thus, the substance of Spirit is God Himself. Thus, if the currency has not this Spirit, can it be substance to be used by the Good and Lawful Christian? Certainly not. Remember, He that made the visible also made the invisible. What is it that is invisible? Rights in and of Inheritance by, in, and through Christ Jesus. That is, if the coins have a Source, Cause and Origin in Christ Jesus, through Good and Lawful Christians, then Rights in and of Inheritance in Christ Jesus are able to be conveyed in parity. The parity is the parity of Right in Inheritance, and has nothing to do with commerce, or assigned hypothetical commercial values based on the mind of the natural man. Why? First Scripture gives the answer:

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." 1 Corinthians 2:14-15.

The natural man then receives nothing having any substance in Spirit originating in God our Father, through Christ Jesus. Therefore, Scripture declares:

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witch- craft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings [*com- merce], murders, drunkenness [*commerce -note Mystery Babylon], revellings [*commerce], and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Gal. 5:19-21. [*Insertions and emphasis added.]

Now, to this implementation:

"The original meaning of a perpetuity is an unalienable, indestructible interest." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 2570.
"PERPETUITY. Any limitation [*imposed by covenant evidenced in Scripture, or in the constitution] tending to take the subject of it [*the Rights vested by God and all property in the dominion held in common by Good and Lawful Christians] out of commerce for a longer period than a life or lives in being, and twenty-one years beyond;or it is such a limitation of property [*in the Good and Lawful Christian Man's dominion] as renders it unalienable beyond the period allowed by law. Gilbert on Uses, by Sugden, 260, note." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1859), vol. II, p. 332. [Emphasis and *insertions added. Retention of Common Right established perpetuity to be passed on to Posterity.]
"When a grantor makes a valid exception, the thing excepted remains the property of himself or his heirs; but if he has no valid title to it, neither he nor his heirs can recover; Fisher v. Min. Co., 97 N.C. 95, 4 S.E. 772." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 1108. [Emphasis added]

To the natural man, assigned hypothetical commercial value is everything because it is something which comes from within himself, and he gives himself the ability to determine parity based on the value he assigns. What is the thing excepted whenever using currency or other forms passing as money? Clearly, Inheritable Right, for the courts have stated, in compliance with Scripture:

"There is a distinction between a debt discharged and one paid. When discharged, the debt still exists, though divested of its character as a legal obligation during the operation of the discharge." Stanek v. White (1927), 172 Minn. 390, 215 N.W. 781.

Thus, if the debt still exists, then Right of Inheritance could never be conveyed. What this means is that those federal reserve notes in your pocket give no Right in Inheritance--but the labor you expend does, because it is God's labor. Generally, you are giving up your Right of Inheritance to whomever you labor for, in exchange for federal reserve notes or any other non-substantial 'legal fiction' received:

"In this part of the House debate, which, as mercifully as I can, I am presenting only in fragments, Samuel Hooper adverted to the unrealistic habit the legal tender opponents had of denouncing legal tender paper as inimical to coin--unrealistic because there was no currency of coin. Currency of coin was a legal fiction. 'Every intelligent man,' Hooper said, 'knows that coined money is not the currency of the country.' Irredeemable and depreciated state bank notes or state banks or notes of the federal government should serve not only as an actual medium of payment but as a legal one. This was an indirect but substantial argument for making the federal government's domestic sovereignty a reality." Hammond, Sovereignty and an Empty Purse (1970), p. 188, quoting Congressional Globe, 37th Cong. 2d Sess., 6 Feb. 1862, p. 691.

Shortly, thereafter, the National Banking Acts (12 Stat. 665, and 13 Stat. 99) came into being. It now makes sense that the whole reason for the banking acts was an act of invasion by A. Lincoln and his Congress which sat at his pleasure, and still sits at the pleasure of each and every President. This clearly shows the intent of A. Lincoln and his Congress--to extend jurisdiction into the states and give to those who know no Law (those emancipated by presidential proclamation) a "medium of exchange" to use, but giving the grantor-- hidden, although ever present in all transactions--the true "title."

"Contracts "implied in law" imply a promise to pay, whether or not any such promise was made or intended." In Re Altmann's Will, 266 N. Y. S. 773, 779, 149 Misc. 115.
"An obligation similar in character to that of a contract, but which arises not from an agreement of parties but from some relation with them, or from a voluntary act of one of them [*using Federal Reserve Notes]." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Quasi-Contract," p. 2781. [*Insertion added]

How did and does this affect Christ's church? It affects the Right in Inheritance as noted above because it is never conveyed or passed because the debt is never paid. This is how a people are thrown off the land because of the curse of God given Moses in Deuteronomy 28 for failure of the church to "walk in the old ways." But the way for repentance is open:

"Quasi-contracts were a well defined class under the civil law. By the civil code of Louisiana they are defined to be "the lawful and purely voluntary acts of man, from which there results any obligation whatever to a third person and sometimes a reciprocal obligation between parties. In quasi-contracts the obligation arises not from consent, as in the case of contracts, but from the law of natural equity." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, id.

Note the law invoked--the foe of God: civil law from Rome found in the lawlessness of natural equity. This being the case then, it is based solely in reason of the natural man. Reason of the natural man is simply conjecture because the natural man has no knowledge of the things of the Spirit of God. Note 1 Corinthians 2:14. All the arguments which patriots and politicians use are arguments founded in the same conjectures and speculation of the natural mind. And for this reason they are incomplete, and in error, for they deny the sole Source of all Law which created Inheritable Right and all Substance: God our Father by and through Christ Jesus. The "law" of quasi-contracts is that law which was, and is, condemned in the Revivor of Judgment by Christ Jesus. Therefore, that 'law' has no standing, even in the 'mind' of the natural man:

"For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" Romans 1:20.

A Short History of the Law of Land Titles

by John William

We have often pointed out that true title to land only comes by descent, i.e., inheritance, and not by purchase, regardless of whether or not the land was purchased by fiat currency such as Federal Reserve Notes, or whether purchased by dollars in silver.

This has been true of land titles since at least the 15th century as we see in the very important work often cited as "Coke on Littleton," the full title of which is found in The First Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England or, a Commentary Upon Littleton, by Sir Edward Coke, Volume One.

Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634) is seen as one of the three or four greatest legal minds in the last thousand years of the history of law and is equally famous for having stopped martial law in England by his Petition of Right in 1628, published against King Charles I. This fact we have also mentioned in The News on previous occasions. We have cited Coke's Petition in Non-Statutory Abatements almost from the beginning. Thus, even though Coke lived and died more than three hundred and fifty years ago, his work influences us today, and in his Institutes we find extended commentary on the works of Littleton, another English jurist that predates Coke by nearly two hundred years.

Sir Thomas de Littleton (1407-1481) wrote a massive work on English common law as it regards lands, houses, tenements, and hereditaments in a work called "Treatise on Tenures" that systematized English law as it concerns land, its acquisition, and use. This work has been called the very first textbook on the law of property which was mainly concerned with rights over land. Land law in England and America is still based, to a great extent, upon the collation of English law compiled by Littleton and explained by Coke.

Thus, the law upon which we base our research on ways to recover true title to land is at least six hundred years old, with roots that likely go even further back into the ancient customs and usages of Christian England. It is for this reason that the history of law is important, because the further we go back in time, the more likely we are to find the root and origin of law and the reasons for its existence in the first place, and the more likely it is that we will find the connection between the law of land and Scripture.

Scripture tells us what the Law is in order that we can avoid sin through the keeping of God's Law. But, Scripture does not always tell us why God does things in one way and not another. In these cases, He has left us the task of figuring out why His Law is written the way it is, and He has left the implementation of His Law to the Christian. It is this implementation of God's Law in which man works out his salvation "in fear and trembling," and it is the implementation which, over time, becomes Our custom and usage, which is also known as the lex non scripta, the unwritten or common law of all Good and Lawful Christians throughout the world.

Coke, of course, does not deal in this work in Volume I of the Institutes with fiat currency. It is assumed that all money used in the purchase of land is based on English coinage, usually pounds sterling, i.e., silver.

In the Institutes, Coke treats Littleton's previous work very systematically and logically and, in Part One, he sets forth a series of charts that illustrate the connections between the various parts of land law and how one part or action follows upon another.

"Littleton's treatise was written in that peculiar dialect compounded of Norman-French and English phrases called law French. Although it had been provided by a statute of 36 Edward III, that viva voce proceedings in court should not longer be conducted in the French tongue, 'which was much unknown in the realm,' the practice of reporting proceedings in that language, and of using it in legal treatises, lingered till a much later period, and was at length prohibited by a statute passed in the time of the Commonwealth in 1650." The Encyclopedia Brittanica: a Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, Literature, and General Information, Published by Encyclopedia Britannica, New York, 342 Madison Avenue. Eleventh Edition, 1911.

Littleton's original work borrows nothing from the sources of Roman civil law or the commentators. He dealt exclusively with English law as it was in his day. Coke translated a good deal of Littleton's work into English to assist readers and often presents, in very few words, an entire overview of land law.

Thus, in summarizing the whole of land law in England in Littleton's time, Coke says:

"...every man that hath a fee simple, hath it either by right or by wrong. If by right, then he hath it either by purchase or descent. If by wrong, then either by disseisin, intrusion, abatement, usurpation, &c. L.1 C.1 Sect. 1. 2.a."

Coke then proceeded to explain the various ways and means of acquiring land by all the above methods and also explains which is the strongest title to land and gives the reasons why.

Clearly, in the above cite, Coke asserts that the only right ways to own land are by purchase or descent, i.e., inheritance. All other ways, which including acts that range from actions in a court to outright usurpation or seizure by conquest, are wrong ways to hold land. Indeed, Coke clearly states just prior to the above cite that:

"For a disseisor, abator, intruder, usurper, &c, [*may] have a fee simple, but it is not a lawfull fee. L1. C.1. Sect. 1. 2a." [*Insertion added].

This helps to explain why, if the I.R.S. or Sheriff seizes land, houses, tenements, and hereditaments, they will not guarantee true title to the new land "owner" after the land is re-sold.

Just as clearly, the right ways to hold land are fully consistent with the Law of God and all other ways are contrary to the Law of God.

Coke then proceeds to tell us who can purchase lands, houses, tenements, or hereditaments:

"Persons capable of purchase are of two sorts, persons natural created of God,... and persons incorporate or politique created by the policy of man (and therefore called bodies politique); and those be of two sorts, viz. Either sole, or aggregate of many: again, aggregate of many, either of all persons capable, or of one person capable, and the rest incapable or dead in law ... Some men have capacitie to purchase, but not abilitie to hold: some, capacity to purchase, and ability to hold or not to hold, at the election of them or others: some, capacitie to take and to hold: some, neither capacitie to take nor to hold: and some, especially disabled to take some particular thing." L.1. C.1. Sect.1. 2a.

The corporation sole was usually either the King, a bishop, or member of royalty who formed a corporation of just one person. Today, this type of corporation no longer exists in America and the nearest equivalent to it would be the formation of a Limited Corporation which may be owned by one man but governed by a Board of Directors of at least three persons.

Note also that a body politic is created by the "policy of men" and that such a corporation is grouped as an "aggregate" corporation along with all other corporations that have many owners or stock-holders. In America, the body politic is owned by the people within the jurisdiction of the body politic--at least in theory.

The only alternative to a government created by the policy of men, is a government created under and controlled by, the Law of God, the possibility of which neither Coke nor Littleton considers in their works. The reason why is, both Coke and Littleton were dealing with the law of England as it actually was and not theoretically, as it should be. Thus, in Coke's commentary on Littleton there is virtually no discussion of God's Law as it applied to the law of England, and yet, it is clear that the law of the land was based, at least in the common law, on Scripture to a great extent. Apparently, by the time Littleton wrote his Treatise on Tenures and Coke wrote his commentary on Littleton, the law was already considered something separate from the authority of Scripture and the Law of God.

In other words, less than three hundred years had elapsed since the commentaries of Bracton and Phillip of Salisbury with their heavy reliance on the Canon law of Christianity, and already the root and ground of law had been lost. But, this should not surprise us, since in America, it took somewhat less time for the Americans to lose their Biblical roots of law.

At any rate, Coke then follows his listing of those who may purchase with examples of why they cannot hold:

"If an alien Christian or infidel purchase houses, lands, tenements, or hereditaments to him and his heires, albeit he can have no heires, yet he is of capacitie to take a fee simple but not to hold." Ibid.

Thus, if an alien Christian or infidel purchases houses, lands, tenements, or hereditaments for himself and his heirs - but if neither has a Lawful heir - they cannot hold their purchase. The land then reverts to the king upon the king's service of an office found in the case of an alien Christian. If the infidel dies without heir, the land automatically reverts to the king and no action on an office found is necessary. In some cases, however, the land will revert to the original owner and not the king, whether an office found is made or not, especially in the case of an infidel.

A corporation sole can take land, houses, tenements, and hereditaments as we mentioned above, by purchase, but unless some special provision is made in the purchase or in the articles of incorporation, the corporation sole cannot hold. And it makes no difference if the corporation sole is ecclesiastical or temporal, the law treats all in the same manner.

If the land or house, and/or its habitation is leased for commercial purposes by an infidel, the king shall have it for the term of the lease and no longer. In sum, an alien infidel has few rights in land, houses, tenements or hereditaments, and though he may take by purchase, he will, in many cases, have a difficult time holding it.

Coke also discusses attaintment of blood and which, in American law, has no relevance. As to:

"An infant or minor (whom we call any that is under the age of 21 yeares) hath, without consent of any other, capacity to purchase, for it is intended for his benefit, and at his full age he may either agree thereunto, and perfect it, or without any cause to be alleged, waive or disagree to the purchase; and so may his heirs after him, if he agreed not thereunto after his full age." Ibid.

Coke then discusses briefly, the rights of those of unsound mind, those physically deformed, a wife (excluding the Queen), parishioners, church-wardens, a bastard, and others on their rights to purchase or not to purchase land and their various abilities to hold or not to hold. He states that lands purchased at rates of interest amounting to usury are void and contracts for the same cannot be enforced.

Of course, the laws on usury cannot be enforced against anything but Lawful money, such as dollars in silver. Thus, one advantage for the lenders in lending fictitious money, whether in Federal Reserve Notes or merely in debit entries, is that they avoid actions based upon violations of the laws of usury.

It is clear from Coke's discussion that all those who purchase land, as opposed to those who inherit it, purchase only a limited title for a limited period of time, usually the life of the purchaser, or for a specific term, and then the land either passes to the heirs, or reverts to the king or original land-owner under certain conditions.

Thus, Our original premise, that true title to land only passes by inheritance is still valid and even the great Coke and Littleton confirm it by all they say. Coke then passes to a discussion of the land itself and what will pass with the land and how the land contract should be written if the land is acquired by purchase.

In the general sense, then:

"Land, Terra in the legal signification, comprehendeth any ground, soile, or earth whatsoever; as meadows, pastures, woods, moores, waters, marishes, furses, and heath.... It legally includeth also castles, houses, and other buildings: for castles, houses, &c. consist upon two things, viz. Land or ground, as the foundation or structure thereupon; so as passing the land or ground, the structure or building thereupon passeth therewith." Ibid.

But, from the discussion that follows on the next few pages in this section, we learn that the more detailed a description of the rights conveyed in a land purchase, the more likely it is that all or part of the land can be attacked, by a subsequent action or claim in court, from the original land purchase contract even years after the sale of the land is made. This is true even down to specifying the types of trees that may exist on the land at the time of purchase.

Thus, it is best that in any purchase agreement for land, the contract must be structured in as broad and general a manner as possible. The wording should therefore state that all land lying within the defined boundaries of the close, and all houses and appurtenances thereto with all plants of every kind and description along with all land that lies beneath any rivers, streams, lakes, etc., that cross or enter into the land, and all minerals or metals found beneath the surface of the land is included in the purchase agreement. If one begins to get specific by using words such as except, excluding, etc., one gets specific and opens the door to later attacks on one's title to whatever lies within the boundaries of the close.

Remember, a close is any area of land defined by law, not by survey, plat map, official government map such as a U.S.G.S. topographic map, or fences of any kind. The close is located, usually, by reference to some natural, physical feature of land such as a mountain top, a large rock promontory, the junction of known streams, and so on. In other words, keep it simple and all inclusive. Though not a hard and fast rule, keep the purchase agreement to about two or three pages. Any more and you may be tempted to get into details that will later hang you out to dry.

Throughout Coke's work the Scriptures are freely used as law and cited as part of God's Law and Christianity. But, even though there is often a verse cite in the margin of the work, there are no quote marks at the beginning and end of where the words of the Bible are used and no other marks to indicate where the verse begins and ends, and where Coke's commentary takes up. Coke uses and integrates the words, verses, and phrases of the Scripture as if they were his own. All one can do is look up the cite that is sometimes paraphrased and not cited explicitly.

He also uses freely, Christian concepts and ideas or doctrines of Christianity without, again, marking or indicating them as such. They are simply part of Coke's normal language as a commentator on Littleton.

Coke spends many pages on defining single words used in the English common law and in these definitions one can almost see the Biblical verses that lay behind his definitions.

In the next Issue of The News we will set out some of Coke's definitions of words and phrases, including the all important one as regards an inheritance: "To have and to hold."

Almighty God vs. the mighty god

(continued from Issue the Twenty-ninth)

How does man sue God for a violation of a right originating in God, belonging to God, and is given for use only to those who belong to Him? Seems it would be impossible, for clearly the burden is on you to prove the "sovereign" has given his consent:

"It is a general rule that the sovereign cannot be sued in his own court without his consent, and this was so from the days of Bracton, nor could a feudal lord; 3 Holdsw. Hist. E. L. 311; and hence no direct judgment can be rendered against him therein for costs, except in the manner and on the condition he has prescribed; State v. Lazarus, 40 La.Ann. 856, 5 South. 289; The Antelope, 12 Wheat.(U.S.) 549, 6 L.Ed. 723; U.S. v. Ringgold, 8 Pet.(U.S.) 163, 8 L.Ed. 899. And in 2 St.Tr. 320, when counsel for the king of Spain asked for costs, Lyndhurst, C., said, 'We will not disparage the dignity of the king of Spain by giving him costs.' While a sovereign is thus exempt from being made defendant in a suit, he may himself submit to the jurisdiction of a domestic or foreign court by bringing suit. While a foreign sovereign may sue to enforce a juristic right, it is otherwise where it seeks aid in maintaining its authority; Moore, Act of State 148." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 3094.

We see that man cannot move against God at all. But in regard to "civil rights," those who claim them "perfect" all obligations or burdens which come with them. This perfection comes not with just letters, and words, but with conduct, because it is conduct which speaks louder and surer than any words. Therefore, it is written:

"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 7:16-21.

How many of these agencies and what are some of their distinguishing features? Let us look at what the American Bar(fly) Association has to say:

"Executive Courts (Administrative Agencies) a conglomerate of which, according to the committee's [A.B.A. Report of the Special Committee on Administrative Law] last count (as of January, 1935) consisted of 73 federal tribunals exercising judicial power in 267 classes of cases. These agencies vary in character over a wide range, from individuals (including the President and the several heads of departments) and bureaus in the executive branch of the government to independent boards and commissions. The tenure of their members is in no case during good behavior nor are they protected against diminution of compensation or abolition of their offices. The tenure varies from a definite term of years (subject to removal for grounds expressed in vague, general language) to a day-to-day employment held at the whim of executive officials. The method of appointment varies from nomination by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to the uncontrolled hiring and firing of a subordinate by a superior. The functions exercised by these agencies run the whole gamut from the purely judicial, through doubtful zones in judicial-executive and the judicial-legislative borderlands, into undisputed provinces of the executive and the legislative. Their distinguishing feature, from the point of view of the present study, is that, unlike the constitutional courts and the legislative courts, they represent combinations of prosecutor and judge, or of prosecutor, legislator, and judge, over the same subject matter. The decisions of these agencies may be made subject to review on both the law and the facts by legislative courts [Federal Radio Comm. v. General Electric Co., 281 U.S. 464; Ex parte Bakelite Corporation, 279 U.S. 438; Postum Cereal Company v. California Fig Nut Co., 272 U.S. 693; Keller v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 261 U.S. 428, 444], but even in cases of an indubitably judicial character their decisions may not be reviewed by constitutional courts except, generally speaking, as to questions of law (collateral attack) [Murray v. Hoboken Land Co., 18 How. 284; Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 279 U.S. 716]." 61 Reports of the American Bar Assn. 723, 724 (1936). [Insertions are footnotes from the original text.]

This is before the days of the E.E.O.C., but you most certainly find that most of the "cabinet posts" are in deed the place for redress of grievances when one violates the "civil rights" of one of those who acknowledges having them. This is clearly a source of despotism and tyranny, whose ring started back in the days of Nimrod, the mighty hunter before the Lord, who hunted men. It is just more "civil" now:

"Until the three recent amendments to the national constitution, which abolished slavery and attempted to protect the civil and political rights of the freedmen, all parties conceded that the federal government had no power whatever to restrain such an offence [murder] as this. The punishment of murder, arson, assaults and batteries, trespasses, frauds, injuries to reputation, of obstructions to the right of attending church, public schools, theatres, and forcing the right of being accommodated in inns, and by common carriers within the State, were matters not only not granted to the general government, but in the constitution itself expressly reserved to the States." Charge to the Grand Jury, by Emmons, Circuit Judge, 3 Am.L.Rec. 738 (1874).

And as for The New Despotism coming down the pike through administrative law:

"In order to perceive clearly the nature of this influence or tendency, and the relation in which it stands to the essential foundations of the Constitution, it may be well to examine briefly, first, the meaning and implications, on the one hand, of the rule of law, and, on the other hand, of the continental system of so-called 'administrative law' with which the rule of law is sharply contrasted. The apologists of the growing system [of administrative law], or lack of system, which it is here proposed to explore sometimes permit themselves to speak of it as if it were 'administrative law.' But the description, it will be seen, is quite curiously the reverse of the truth. The continental system of 'administrative law,' profoundly repugnant as it is to English ideas, is at least a system. It has its Courts, its law, its hearings, and adjudications, its regular and accepted procedure. It would be a strange misuse of terms if the name of administrative law' were to be applied to that which, upon analysis, proved to be nothing more than administrative lawlessness.
"Let nobody be so foolish or so flippant as to suppose that any attack is here intended upon what it is a commonplace to describe as the best Civil Service in the world. In a treatise upon photography, as somebody, says, one may assume the existence of the sun. In remarks upon the mischiefs of bureaucracy one may assume the excellence of the Civil Service. Yet it may perhaps be well to remember that high capacity and ardent zeal never need to be more carefully watched than when they appear to have entered, with all their might, upon a wrong road. It does not take a horticulturist to perceive that, if a tree is bearing bad fruit, the more vigourously it yields, the greater will be the harvest of mischief. Many persons of course have from time to time perceived and deplored this particular mischief. But, somehow, some of them found it more convenient to their inclinations or their aims to refrain from words even of good omen. They have passed by, like the prudent Levite, on the other side. Or they have been content to say that, 'after all, people get the kind of government they deserve,' wholly refusing to recognize the power of a skilful and organized minority.
"Or, again, they have so nicely balanced their appreciation of what is good and their examination of what is less good that, with the convenient help of a little confusion of thought, they have left the detached spectator wondering upon which side they appeared. But to the impartial eye of the fearless citizen it is obvious that the official just as surely seeks to escape the jurisdiction of the Courts when he takes power to make regulations having the force of a statute as when he in terms provides that his decisions shall not by any method be open to review. It is no less obvious that, if such an endeavour were the isolated act of an ingenious individual, its consequences might be almost trivial. But other considerations apply if a mass of evidence establishes the fact that there is in existence a persistent and well-contrived system, intended to produce, and in practice, producing a despotic power which at one and the same time places the Government Departments above the sovereignty of Parliament and beyond the jurisdiction of the Courts. It it appears that this system springs from and depends upon a deep-seated official conviction, which in turn it nourishes and strengthens by each successive manifestation of its vigour, that this, when all is said and done, is the best and most scientific way of ruling the country, the consequences, unless they are checked, must be in the highest degree formidable." Lord Hewart in 'The New Despotism' (1929), pp. 6-8. [Emphasis and insertions added.]

So we can see then that the system is set up so that only those "in the know" know any thing. Those "in the know" are your local lawyers, most of whom belong to that God-less entity, the American Bar[fly] Association, organized under the laws of the District of Columbia in 1873. Your local lawyer will not be able to advise you in any case because the Supreme Court of the United States has seen to that, in Erie R. R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64--there is no stare decises when questions of administrative law are concerned. This is clearly admitted by the courts and at least one bar(fly) association:

"The Supreme Court of the United States has 'rendered it impossible for the practicing lawyer to advise his client as to what the law is today, or even to offer a guess as to what it will be tomorrow,' a resolution adopted by the State Bar of Texas declares.
"The court 'repeatedly has overruled decisions, precedents and landmarks of the law of long standing without assigning any valid reason therefor,' read the resolution adopted yesterday, 'dismissing the question with a wave of the hand [the hand of administrative law of the bondholder], and contenting itself with the assertion that these precedents have been eroded by the processes of the years; or basing its decision on the casuistry and sophistry rather than by logic.'
"The resolution added that 'by this conduct and controversies within its own personnel, it (the court) has subjected itself to the suspicion, widely held, that it speaks, or undertakes to speak, in the voice of the appointing power [the bondholder through the Executive department], rather than by the voice of the law.'
"Presented by J. W. Hassell of Dallas, the resolution asserted that 'the Supreme Court of the United States is losing, if it has not already lost, the high esteem in which it has been held by the people." Seattle Daily Times, June 30, 1944, in Millard, J, dissenting opinion in Southwest Washington Production Credit Assn. v. Fender (1944), 21 Wash.2d 349, 363-364. [Emphasis and insertions added.]

It would seem if this newspaper article had nothing to say it would never have been used in this case. But it said something very disturbing to Justice Millard. To him, this administrative lawlessness had gotten too far out of hand:

"When a principle of law is established by a long series of decisions without a single case on the other side; to carry it out in plain good faith, is as sacred a duty as any Judge has to perform. His own motion, that it ought to be otherwise is not entitled to a moment's consideration. It is no part of our office to tinker at the law, and patch it up with new materials of our own making. Suitors are entitled to it just as it is. Bad laws can be borne; but the jus vagum aut incertum--the law that shifts and changes every time it passes through the Courts is as sore an evil and as heavy a curse as any people can suffer; and no people who are fit for self-government will suffer it long. Even a legislator, if he is wise and thoughtful, will make no change which is not absolutely necessary. Legislative changes however are prospective, and disturb nothing that is past. But Judge-made laws sweep away all the rights which may have been acquired on the faith of previous rules. For such wrongs even the legislature can furnish no redress. When the scales of justice are shaken by the hands that hold them here, there is no power elsewhere to adjust them. A simple man who has invested his money in the purchase of a title solemnly pronounced indefeasible in half a dozen cases decided by the highest tribunal of the State, may wake up from his dream of security to find himself ruined by a contrary ruling of the very same question.
"The judgment now about to be given, is one of 'death's doings.' No one can doubt that if Judge Gibson and Judge Coulter had lived, the plaintiff could not have been thus deprived of his property; and thousands of other men would have been saved from the imminent danger to which they are now exposed of losing the homes they have labored and paid for. But they [the Framers] are dead; and the law which should have protected those sacred rights has died with them. It is a melancholy reflection, that the property of a citizen should be held by a tenure so frail. But 'new lords, new laws,' is the order of the day. Hereafter if any man be offered a title which the Supreme Court has decided to be good, let him not buy if the Judges who made the decision are dead; if they are living let him get an insurance on their lives; for ye know not what a day or an hour may bring forth.
"The majority of this Court changes on the average once every nine years, without counting the chances of death and resignation. If each new set of Judges shall consider themselves at liberty to overthrow the doctrines of their predecessors, our system of jurisprudence (if system it can be called) would be the most fickle, uncertain and vicious that the civilized world ever saw." Millard, J., in Southwest Washington Production Credit Assn. v. Fender (1944), 21 Wash.2d 349, 365-366 citing Jeremiah S. Black dissenting in Hole v. Rittenhouse, 2 Phila. 411, 417.
"We must--it is the duty of all, especially those who have taken the oath to support the constitution--actively resist each and every effort to change our form of government.
"By enactments of legislative bodies of our country, there have been created during the past few years bureaus and departments to regulate each and every act of each and every human being from the cradle to the grave. Those enactments purportedly delegate not only legislative power to, but also vest judicial power in, such bureaus and departments. Judicial power cannot constitutionally be delegated to bureaus, OPA, WLB, or other alphabetical bureaus and commissions." Millard, J., in Southwest Washington Production Credit Assn. v. Fender (1944), 21 Wash.2d 349, dissenting opinion.

Somehow, opinions of administrative officials must be given credence even if they are contrary to the Law of God, which is clearly a political issue:

"To be authoritative, the opinion or assertion must be entitled to acceptance. Recently there was imputed to one of our prominent Federal officials the statement that continued hostility to the program of a certain so-called philosophy of government, which means a change of form of our government, would result in bloodshed. That utterance may be cited as an authority; that is, an argument ad baculum--proves a conclusion by an appeal to force, rather than reason. In the year 711 A.D., the Moslem hordes overran Europe, first defeating the Visigoths in Spain. Those followers of Mahomet entered Europe with the Koran in one hand and a scimitar [a saber] in the other. You had the option of giving at least lip service to the religion of choice of those invaders or being liquidated. The offer of the Federal official on behalf of the domestic enemy parallels the right of choice tendered the Europeans by their foreign enemy. Today we have, also, the argumentum ad populum: An argument appealing to the prejudice of the hour rather than to intelligence." Millard, J., in Southwest Washington Production Credit Assn. v. Fender (1944), 21 Wash.2d 349, 370, dissenting opinion.

Repentance is the issue here. For repentance requires what the Law recognizes to be "liberty of conscience," and liberty of conscience is a Christian doctrine, not a humanist doctrine:

"'This is a religious people, not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts; but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men." U.S. v. Laws, 163 U.S. 263, 16 Sup.Ct. 998, 41 L.Ed. 151." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 307.
"Christianity, general Christianity, is and always has been a part of the common law in Pennsylvania; not Christianity with an established church, tithes, and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men." Updegraph v. Commonwealth, 11 Sargeant & Rawles Penn.Sup.Ct. Reports 400. [Emphasis added.]
"Conscience is not controlable by human laws, nor amenable to human tribunals. Persecution, or attempts to force consciences, will never produce conviction; and are only calculated to make hypocrites, or martyrs" Mansfield, Chamberlain v. Evans (1767), 16 Parl.Hist 313, 325. [Emphasis added.]
"Intellectual freedom means the right to re-examine much that has long been taken for granted. A free man must be a reasoning man, and he must dare to doubt what a legislative or electoral majority may most passionately assert. The danger that citizens will think wrongly is serious, but less dangerous than atrophy from not thinking at all.Thought control is a copyright of totalitarianism, and we have no claim to it. It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error. We could justify any censorship only when the censors are better shielded against error than the censored." Jackson, J., American Communications Assn. v. Douds (1950), 339 U.S. 382, 442. [Emphasis added.]
"Liberty of thought soon shrivels without freedom of expression. Nor can truth be pursued in an atmosphere hostile to the endeavor or under dangers which are hazarded only by heroes." Frankfurter, United States v. Dennis (1951), 341 U.S. 494, 550.
"Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard." Jackson, J., in West Virginia State Board of Equalization v. Barnette (1943), 319 U.S. 624, 641.
"And He spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? Shall they not both fall into the ditch?" Luke 6:39.
"Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." Matthew 15:14.

Again, it is written:

"How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15. And how shall they preach, except they be sent? As it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!" Romans 10:13-14.

So then, the doctrine of repentance and liberty of conscience are key to understanding the difference between Lawful and legal. Legality is concerns itself with man's autonomous reason manifested in codes, rules and regulations. But Lawful concerns itself with Law, that Law from God. The administrative official of the de facto powers is restricted to a specific sphere, the legal sphere from which you must separate and maintain that separation--the political question:

"The belligerent occupant of a country has right to make regulations for protection of occupant's military interests and the exercise of police powers, with correlative duty of maintaining public order and providing for preservation of rights of inhabitants of territory occupied. Hague Regulations, art. 1, 42-56, 43, 36 Stat. 2295." Aboitiz & Co. v. Price (1951), 99 F.Supp. 602.
"In order for decrees and regulations of a belligerent occupant of another country's territory to be recognized as valid, such decrees and regulations must not be of a political complexion, but must be in the interest of the welfare of inhabitants of area occupied." Aboitiz & Co. v. Price (1951), 99 F.Supp. 602, 612-613. [Emphasis added.]

All administrative officials of the de facto powers are bound by political questions. You cannot, however, maintain a political question by accepting security, guarantees, or protections under the Civil Rights Acts. For it is easily seen that one cannot serve two masters, and:

"5. The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation. Tyler v. The Judges, 179 U.S. 405; Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 625. Among the many applications of this rule, none is more striking than the denial of the right of challenge to one who lacks a personal or property right. Thus, the challenge by a public official interested only in the performance of his official duty will not be entertained. Columbus & Greenville Ry. Co. v. Miller, 283 U.S. 96, 99-100. In Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, the Court affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by a citizen who sought to have the Nineteenth Amendment declared unconstitutional. In Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, the challenge of the federal Maternity Act was not entertained although made by the Commonwealth on behalf of all its citizens [subjects].
"6. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits. Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581; Wall v. Parrot Silver and Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407, 411-412; St. Louis Malleable Casting Co. v. Prendergast Construction Co., 260 U.S. 469.
"7. When the validity of an act of the Congress is drawn in question, and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided. Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 62." Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 346, 56 S.Ct. 466, 482, 80 L.Ed. 688.

Any one out there listening? This is full disclosure!

You may be asking, "What is the remedy, if any?" The fact of the matter is, that God has already provided a remedy in His Son, Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and which was recognized in Aboitiz--religion is a political question, because it was pointed out at the top of this article that religion and law are intimately connected. Did not Christ make full disclosure to each of us in His Testament? And if so, then what are the keys he has placed in our hands for His Glory?

First, let us understand the nature of a "testament" and "administrator." This is all-important:

"ADMINISTER. To manage the property of a person who dies intestate, i.e., without a will, or whose will incompletely disposes of his property, or whose will lacks a competent executor. ["Faith without works is dead"] The purpose of administration is to distribute the property [common wealth] to the persons entitled [Christians]. The document granting the authority [Scripture] under which this is done is called letters of administration." Radin, Law Dictionary (1955), p. 8.
"ADMINISTRATION. 1. In public law, administration may refer generally to all the functions of the executive branch of the government. It is more particularly used of the function of members of definite governmental agencies created by statute, or under the authority of statute. The purpose is as a rule to carry out specific laws of general import. See Administrative Law.
"2. The act of administering. See administer." Radin, Law Dictionary (1955), p. 8. [Insertions added]

What these two definitions are stating is this: Today's Christian is incompetent to execute the Testament of Jesus Christ, and so administrators are administrating, but not executing, the law until the Christian becomes competent enough to Lawfully execute the Testament himself. By default, the Christian has given over to administrators the management of his Inheritance in Christ, and opted for those empty benefits and privileges: civil rights. Such is known to the law as a species of quasi-contract:

"An obligation similar in character to that of a contract, but which arises not from an agreement of parties but from some relation with them, or from a voluntary act of one of them." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Quasi-Contract," p. 2781.
"According to Professor Ames (Lect. on Leg. Hist. 160), the term was not found in the common law, but it has been taken by writers of the common law from the Roman Law.
It need only be added here that quasi-contracts were in Roman Law in almost infinite variety, but were divided into five (5) classes:
4. Hereditatis aditio, the entering upon an inheritance" Bouvier's Law Dictionary, ibid.

Notice that the provisional government is protecting the inheritance of Good and Lawful Christians, not trying to destroy it. Now, you can call the government whatever you wish, but that will not solve the problem. The problem is solved from Scripture, and has more to do with you than it does with government:

"[You] study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Tim 2:15.

Only by Lawfully executing the Testament of Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, does the Good and Lawful Christian have any standing in Law to perform any thing. By Lawfully executing the Testament of Christ Jesus, the administrative law will be curtailed and leave your Life, Liberty and Dominions under God alone:

"When a 'law [testament] is suspended,' the law [testament] continues in esse, for the time being is not operative, but as soon as the power of suspension is relaxed it goes into immediate operation. Arroyo v. State, Tex., 69 S.W. 503, 505." Words and Phrases, vol. 24A, Permanent Edition, p. 98. [Insertions added.]

But you must come to the belief that this will happen, and act on that belief in the character and mode that fits that belief, "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." For the apostle says:

"If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law." James 2:8-11

The answer is not found in guns, guts and blood of the innocents. It clearly is not found in "commercial lien" packages, title 42 "lawsuits," "redress of grievances" packages and the like, which make others rich by filching from you. Those are for the lawless who are non compos mentis, such as "natural persons" and "human beings," and thus rely on the lawlessness of an inferior 'god' to get along in life, sans liberty or dominion.

"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts higher than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8-9.

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Close, Inheritance, and Hereditaments

"CLOSE. n. An interest in the soil. Doctor & Stud. 30; 6 East 154; 1 Burr. 133; or in trees or growing crops. Clap v. Draper, 4 Mass. 266, 3 Am.Dec. 215; Stewart v. Doughty, 9 Johns.(N.Y.) 113.

"The noun "close," in its legal sense, imports a portion of land enclosed, but not necessarily inclosed by actual or visible barriers. The invisible, ideal boundary, founded on limit of title, which surrounds every man's land, constitutes it his close, irrespective of walls, fences, ditches, or the like." Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd Ed. (1933), page 341.

"In considering the cases in which trespass might be supported for an injury to land (for breaking the close) it is laid down that the term close, being technical, signifies the interest in the soil, and not merely an inclosure in the common acceptance of that term. It lies, however temporary the tenant's interest, and though it be merely in the profits of the soil as vesturae terrae or herbatii pasturae; Co. Litt. 4b; 5 East 480; 6 id. 606; 5 T.R. 535; prima tonsura; 7 East 200; chase for warren, etc.; 2 Salk. 637; if it be in exclusion of others; 2 Bla.Rep. 1150; 8 M. & S. 499. So it lies by one having a right to take off grass; 6 East 602; or after a tenancy expires, a right to emblements; Stewart v. Doughty, 9 Johns.(N.Y.) 108; or by one having the right to cut timber trees; Clap v. Draper, 4 Mass. 266, 3 Am.Dec. 215.

"In every case where one man has a right to exclude another from his land, the law encircles it, if not already inclosed, with an imaginary fence, and entitles him to a compensation in damages for the injury he sustains by the act of another passing through his boundary--denominating the injurious act a breach of the inclosure; Hamm. N.P. 151; Doctor & Stud. Dial. 1, c. 8, p. 30; Worrall v. Rhoads, 2 Whart.(Pa.) 430, 30 Am.Dec. 274.

"Ejectment will not lie for a close; 11 Co. 55; Cro. Eliz. 235; Ad. Ej. 24. See CLAUSUM." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), vol I, p. 506.

"There are many rights which in their mode of enjoyment partake of the character of easements, such as a custom for the inhabitants of a village to dance upon a particular close at all times of the year; 1 Lev. 176; that every inhabitant of a town shall have a way over certain land either to church or to market; 6 Co. Rep. 59;" Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 967, 968, 971. [Emphasis added.]

"INHERITANCE. A perpetuity in lands to a man and his heirs; or it is the right to succeed to the estate of a person who died intestate. Dig. 50, 16, 24. The term is applied to lands.

"2. The property which is inherited is called an inheritance.

"3. The term inheritance includes not only lands and tenements which have been acquired by descent, but also every fee simple or fee tail, which a person has acquired by purchase, may be said to be an inheritance, because the purchaser's heirs may inherit it.

"4. Estates of inheritance are divided into inheritance absolute, or fee simple; and inheritance limited, one species of which is called fee tail. They are also divided into corporeal, as houses and lands; and incorporeal, commonly called incorporeal hereditaments. (q.v.) 1 Cruise, Dig. 68; Sw. 163; Poth. des Retraits, n. 28.

"5. Among the civilians, by inheritance is understood the succession to all rights of the deceased. It is of two kinds, 1. That which arises by testament, when the testator gives his succession to a particular person; and, 2. That which arises from operation of law, which is called succession ab intestat. Hein. Lec. El. 484, 485." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1859), vol. I, p. 633. [Emphasis added.]

"HEREDITAMENTS. Things capable of being inherited, be it corporeal or incorporeal, real, personal, or mixed, and including not only lands and everything thereon, but also heir-looms, and certain furniture which, by custom, may descend to the heir together with the land. Co. Litt. 5 b; Chal. R. P. 43; Oskaloosa Water Co. v. City of Oskaloosa, 84 Ia. 407, 51 N.W. 18, 15 L.R.A. 296. By this term such things are denoted as may be the subject-matter of inheritance, but not the inheritance itself; it cannot, therefore, by its own intrinsic force, enlarge an estate prima facie a life estate, into a fee; 2 B. & P. 251; 8 Term 503." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 1435.

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

The Sabbath and the House of Prayer

How great is the mercy of God in providing these houses of prayer, where two or three may meet together in His name, and find their gracious Lord in the midst of them, saluting them, as in the days of His flesh, with His accustomed benediction, Peace be unto you. What a relief is it to come into these hallowed walls, out of the strife and turmoil of the world, and commit our cause, and our hopes, and our fears, to the care of God! What a comfort to leave behind us, for a brief interval, all the conflicting interests and the entangles devices of this perishable life, and to raise our thoughts to that happier time, when brother shall no longer strive with brother; when men shall be all of one mind in one house; when none shall hunger and thirst, neither shall the heat nor sun smite them by day, nor the cold by night! What a miserable scene of incessant struggle and worldliness would this land be without its Sabbath, and its house of prayer! Abused as are the blessings by so many, despised and trodden under foot, and desecrated, as are too often the holy things of this house, and of the Lord's own day, they yet shed a light and a religious cheerfulness over this world's scene, even in our imperfect observance of their duties, which those who value Christian privileges, value as the bread of life, and the best sustenance of the soul. They are the salt of our land; they keep alive the fire of religious feeling in the alter of the heart; they give a respite from earthly cares, and open a glimpse of heaven to our sight; they speak, as it were, a perpetual protest against vice and infidelity; they set up a standard for the gospel; they oppose a temporary check to the foes of the soul; they remind man that there is no peace or spiritual prosperity, but through reconciliation with God, and in communion with him.

Don't forget the Finial

Compiled by Randy Lee

As many of you already know, Army Regulations at AR840-10, Chap. 2, 2-2b. stipulates that "National flags listed below are for indoor display and for use in ceremonies and parades. For these purposes the United States flag will be rayon banner cloth, trimmed on three sides with golden yellow fringe, 2 1/2 inches wide. It will be the same size as the flags displayed or carried with it."

And at 2-2c. "Authorization for indoor display. The flag of the United States is authorized for indoor display for: (4) each military courtroom."

But not surprisingly, at Chap. 8, 8-2: "Flagstaff head (finial). The flagstaff head (finial) is the decorative ornament at the top of a flagstaff.

a. Only the following finials are authorized:

(1) Eagle--Presidential flagstaffs.

(2) Spearhead--Army flagstaffs.

(3) Acorn--Marker and marking pennants flagstaffs.

(4) Ball--Advertising and recruiting flagstaffs."

The next time you're in a county or state court, check out the President's eagle finial looming above his military gold fringed flag in his military courtroom.

If you would like to receive a copy of the above select Army Regulations, call 818-347-7080.

The glory of the kingdoms of the world

"I have often wondered at the absurdity of those men, who glory in the name of Patriot(speaking of those in high places who wish to substitute good manners in place of religion--a type of humanism for God) and yet make it their business to ridicule religion and weaken its obligations. They acknowledge that it is a necessary restraint on the manners of the multitude, and therefore useful to government; and yet do their utmost to bring it into contempt. I know of no better way to expose the inconsistency of such men, than by comparing them to an architect, who with much cost and labor raises and adorns the superstructure, while he is pulling away the main pillars which support the fabric. Can that man be reckoned a genuine lover of his country, who endeavours to promote vice, and corrupt the morals of the people? And I must take the liberty to think, that this is the case of all those who propagate infidelity, and eradicate all sense of religion from the minds of men." Reverend Thomas Reefe, pastor of the Presbyterian Church in Salem, South Carolina, 1785, cited in Freedom from Federal Establishment (1964), p. 91.

Our Government

"Our original three-sided government was changed after the Civil War. An Abolitionist Congress expanded Northern power first over the secessionist states, and then over all States. Then Congress added agencies that monitor, regulate, fine, and control all commercial and industrial activities: a fourth branch of Government, the bureaucracy. Then Executive Orders appeared from the White House, independent of Congress: a fifth branch. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court ruled that neither Congress or States can change their own laws (even by amendment) without its approval.

Recently, the White House decided to distribute federal funds without consulting Congressional approval and ordered an agency (the FCC) to increase taxes on telephone bills.

After these changes, we cannot define our Government. It's not a democracy when votes don't count; not a republic when unelected agencies rule; not a dictatorship with presidential terms; and not describable when it lacks a coherent structure. Perhaps it's a political platypus." Otto Scott, in Otto Scott's Compass, Vol.3, No.12. (for further information on the monthly 12 page journal Otto Scott's Compass, call 1-800-994-2323).

Senate Joint Resolution No. 41

"A War was waged from 1861 to 1865 between two organized governments: the United States of America and The Confederate States of America. These were the official titles of the contending parties.

"It was not a 'Civil War,' as it was not fought between two parties within the same government.

"It was not a 'War of Secession,' for the Southern States seceded without a thought of war. The right of a State to secede have never been questioned.

"It was not a 'War of rebellion,' for sovereign, independent States, co-equal, cannot rebel against each other.

It was a 'War Between the States,' because twenty-two non-seceding States made war upon eleven seceding States to force them back into the Union of States. It was not until after the surrender of 1865 that secession was decided to be unconstitutional." Congressional Record, 2 March, 1928.

The Fertilizer Factory

The following comments are from a June, 1998 Associated Press release concerning bookstore owner Bill Cramer and Kenneth Starr's subpoena for Monica Lewinsky's book purchases:

"My gut feeling is that bookstores are not in a good position," said Steven Shiffrin, a Cornell University law professor.

He noted that in decisions since the 1970s the Supreme Court "has allowed police and prosecutors without a search warrant, without a subpoena, to go through your trash, to get your mailman to look at outgoing and incoming mail, to get the bank to give up your credit records, get the telephone company to give up a list of calls you receive or make. A bookstore might as well be a fertilizer factory so far as the law is concerned." Visalia Times-Delta, June '98.

Issue the Thirty-first

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

The Great Divide--How a Christian Way of Life was conquered and forgotten...

Has the Law been Abolished...

A Foreword to: "How the Church Fell from Grace"

Maintaining general delivery, Part Two...

Separation of Church and State...

Bits and Pieces...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

How a Christian Way of Life was conquered and forgotten

The Great Divide--

Editor's Note: The following article by John Joseph is but an outline of a more extensive pamphlet which will be available sometime in the near future, God willing.

This article is not written for those who are already puffed up with their own head knowledge, but for only those who have knowledge of Law given them by Grace and through the renewing Power of the Holy Spirit.

"But when Jesus heard that, He said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick." Mt 9:12.

Please note that it is not my intent in this article to judge any one, for Judgment has already been rendered by Christ Jesus.

Many who have been in this Holy War for the last few years have probably studied the issues of jurisdiction, venue, status, and authority. These are all interlocking at some particular point in Law, which is the purpose of this article. It is something which must be addressed because far too many patriots, statutory gurus (note the anti-Christian humanistic concepts in those terms of art), lawyers, pharisees, and others of their ilk have muddied the waters with their notions, speculations, opinions, beliefs, imaginations, and personal judgments to obfuscate these important issues. In fact they have attempted to hinder those called of, and by, God in Christ Jesus from entering the Kingdom prepared for them (note the past tense). There is no difference between a patriot, statutory guru, or a lawyer when working against God:

"Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that [*have the key of knowledge and who] were entering in ye hindered." Luke 11:52. [*Insertion added.]
"Qui non libere veritatem pronunciat proditor est veritatis --He who does not freely speak the truth is a betrayer of the truth." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 1414.
"Qui obstruit aditum, destruit commodum --He who obstructs a way, passage, or entrance destroys a benefit or convenience." Black's Law Dict. (4th ed.) p. 1414.
"Qui male agit odit lucem --He who acts badly hates the light." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 1413.

But God has them in derision:

"But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise [*Lawful Christian] government. Presumptuous are they, self-willed [*not meek before Christ Jesus], they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities [*appointed and established in Law by God]. Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;" 2 Peter 2:10-12. [*Insertions added.]
"For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off: That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought." Isaiah 29:20-21.
"Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision." Ps 2:1-4.

Notice carefully what our Good Brother Peter is telling us: lawyers, patriots, and statutory gurus, because they hold the Anointed Word of God in contempt, are as natural brute beasts. Could they be likened to the serpent, one of several "beasts of the field" in the Garden? Our Brother Sir Richard Baker has this to say of those who are ungodly:

"But have then ungodly men counsel? One would think it were want of counsel that makes them ungodly, for who would be ungodly if he had counsel to direct him? Certainly counsel they have, and wise counsel too; that is, wise in the eye of the world, and wise for the works of the world; but wise in the sight of God, and wise for the works of godliness, they have not; and in that kind of wisdom ungodly men are your greatest counsellors--greatest in the ability of counsel, and greatest in the busying themselves with counselling. For their wisdom in counsel we have a precedent in Achitophel, who was in his time a most wicked man, and yet for counsel was the oracle of his time. And, for their forwardness in counselling, it is a quality they have, as it were ex traduce [by ingrafting], from their father the devil, who, no sooner creatures were made that were capable of counsel, but he fell a-counselling; and such, indeed, are all the ungodly, as it is in the Psalm, the poison of asps in under their lips. It serves not their turn to do wickedly in their persons, but they must be drawing others into wickedness by poisoning and infecting them with wicked counsel. So, then, the not walking in the counsel of the ungodly, is not to hearken to the hissing of the serpent, nor to make wicked men our counsellors, nor in the course and actions of our life to be directed by them." Sir Richard Baker, Meditations and Disquisitions upon Certain Psalms (1639, reprinted 1988 by Sprinkle Publications), page 12.

Remember the above whenever you seek counsel of the ungodly. Good and Lawful Christians, having the Mind of Christ, not being natural brute beasts, hold with the simplicity in Christ so they can confuse the wise of this world. Such is the Blessed Ways of God, our Father:

"Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger." Psalm 8:2.
"For, behold, the Lord, the LORD of hosts, doth take away from Jerusalem and from Judah the stay and the staff, the whole stay of bread, and the whole stay of water. The mighty man, and the man of war, the judge, and the prophet, and the prudent, and the ancient, The captain of fifty, and the honourable man, and the counsellor, and the cunning artificer, and the eloquent orator. And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them." Isaiah 3:2-4.

This is a part of that great division between Good and Lawful Christians and the world. That division is very important, because it determines all other jurisdictions and venues. This may not seem self-evident at this time. Please be patient in the Lord. When progressing through this article and continuing through the full pamphlet, it is my hope that you will have all the tools necessary to look at a particular situation and stand on the Holy Ground bought with and hallowed by the Precious Blood of our Mighty King Christ Jesus.

"BOUGHT. The word 'bought' implies a completed transaction, a vesting of the right of title to and possession of the property sold. Bull v. Morrison, Tex.Civ.App., 241, S.W. 561, 562, and also imports a valuable consideration [*salvation by, in, and through Christ Jesus]. Grimes v. State, 32 Ga.App. 541, 123 S.E. 918." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., page 232. [*Insertion added].
"For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." 1 Corinthians 6:20.

A Good and Lawful Christian is a bondservant to the One Who bought him. This is a leading indicator between the Good and Lawful Christian and the human being.

The title looks misleading, but it is not. The Great Divide it is referring to is the Great Divide between church and State venues and jurisdictions (see Separation of Church and State, Page fourteen). Just about all patriots and all of the other idolizing ilk "professing to be wise" have no concept as to where this Great Division is or takes place. They just want "their constitutional rights" or "day in court," not knowing any thing about which they speak. When you cast the Law of God aside, you cast the Way, the Truth, and Life aside.

I will say, with Scripture being my sole basis for this statement, he who looks to constitutions or man's equity for any thing, that man is a fallen man, united in death to Adam, and not united in and to the quickening Spirit of Christ Jesus:

"Individuals [*Christians] rely for protection of their rights [*in and through Christ] on [*Christian] law, and not upon regulations and proclamations of departments of government, or officers who have been designated to carry laws into effect." Baty v. Sale, 43 Ill. 351. [Insertions added.]
"What is a constitution, and what are its objects? It is easier to tell what it is not than what it is. It is not the beginning of a community, nor the origin of private rights; it is not the fountain of law, nor the incipient state of government; it is not the cause, but consequence, of personal freedom and political freedom; it grants no rights to the people, but is the creature of their power, the instrument of their convenience. Designed for their protection in the enjoyment of the rights and powers which they possessed before the constitution was made, it is but the framework of the political government, and necessarily based upon the pre-existing condition of laws [*Scripture], rights [*jus ex non scripto], habits [*customs and usages], and modes of thought [*See Philippians 2:2]. There is nothing primitive [*mysterious] in it: it is all derived from a known source [*Scripture]. It presupposes an organized [*Christian] society, [*Scriptural] law, order, property [*executorship], personal freedom [*Christian Liberty], a love of political liberty [*in Christ Jesus], and enough of cultivated intelligence to know how to guard it against the encroachments of tyranny [*which we have lost in this present age]. A written constitution is in every instance a limitation upon the powers of government in the hands of agents; for there never was a written republican constitution which delegated to functionaries all the latent powers which lie dormant in every nation, and are boundless in extent, and incapable of definition." Hamilton v. St. Louis County Court, 15 Mo. 13. [*Insertions added. The insertions made will be addressed later.]

The divisions between the States can be seen from any map showing the several States on the North American continent. Notice the capitalization on the word "States." I bring this up, because in Law and in English grammar, capitalization is vitally important for making distinctions and exceptions to the general rule:

"By the word State (spelled with a capital) is meant one of the States of the American Union. Spelled otherwise, it refers to political societies or states in general." Robinson's Elementary Law (1882), note, p. xxxiv. [Insertion in original.]

It is not enough to know this, however. We must know in Christ the general rule to understand the distinction. The general rule is that the church always exists, first; as a consequence of this, states, in the nature of a quasi-corporation, exist; but, States do not exist ex proprio vigore. It is never the reverse:

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Mt 16:18. [Emphasis added.]
"Ecclesia non moritur --The church does not die." Black's Law Dictionary (4th. ed., 1957 & 1968) p. 602.

The Christian Church

"The meaning of the word church is the same as that of 'congregation,' or 'assembly.' In this sense, there may be a good or a bad church. But the specific meaning of the word church, at the present time, is a body of worshippers, united together (generally, [*not specifically--non-denominational in Law]) in one place."--Rev. E. W. Humphreys, in Gospel Herald, May 23, 1863, in The Centennial of Religious Journalism (1908), p. 185.
"CHURCH, (a) the sacred building, aedes sacra: © the congregation, *coetus sacer: *sacra publica, orum; n. (the divine service): to go to church, *sacra publica adire; *sacra publicis adesse: to perform the church service (of the clergyman), rebus divinis interesse: to attend church, sacris adesse (of a layman): © THE CHURCH (i.e. the whole body of the visible Church), legis Christianae studiosi (Ammian, 25, 10); qui Christum sequuntur; civitas or respublica Christianorum; ecclesia (ecclesiastical)." Riddle, English-Latin Lexicon (1849), pp. 94-95.

I will qualify one thing here at this juncture. The church is not the public, for 'the public' is unqualified in the sense that all, Christian and non-Christian alike, are included. This, in reality, is clearly not the case. Christ alludes to this and gives us this doctrine:

"For whosoever shall do the will of My Father which is in heaven, the same is My brother, and sister, and mother." Mt 12:50. [Emphasis added.]

The true church of Christ then, is that Body doing the works He did, and does, in revealing God, our Father, to us and to the public. This does not include works of the natural man such as philanthropy, which is for human comfort and the relief of human suffering, but has nothing to do with the inner man. It is the inner man which must be renewed so that the outer works will flow unhindered under the direction of the Holy Spirit. In this way the church grows and gives its fruit "being instant in season."

States (with a capital "S") do not come into existence until their organic law is established by the church for political purposes. The courts also recognize this truth in law:

"In the sense of the constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government, the term 'state' is used to express the idea of a people or political community, as distinguished from the government; Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700." Bouvier's Law Dict. (1914), "State," p. 3124. [Emphasis added.]

The Law that permeates through, surrounds, and binds the community cannot be human law based on a fiction called a "social compact." Why? Because the power to contract must exist in Law before the compact is formed. All Lawful powers are created and sustained by Law. Therefore, the Law must already exist; and if it already exists, of what need is there for this anti-Christian, God-less, humanist "social compact?" Only to create a "legal personality" for those outside the Body of Christ:

"BODY POLITIC OR CORPORATE. A social compact by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good. Uricich v. Kolesar, 54 Ohio App. 309, 7 N.E.2d 413, 414. A term applied to a corporation. County. Bazzoli v. Larson, 40 Ohio App. 321, 178 N.E. 331, 332; Lindburg v. Bennett, 117 Neb. 66, 218 N.W. 851, 855. Municipality. Middle-States Utilities Co. v. City of Osceola, 1 N.W.2d 643, 645, 231 Iowa 851, 855. School district. Patrick v. Maybank, 198 S.C. 262, 17 S.E.2d 530, 534.
"State or nation or public associations, Utah State Building Commission, for Use and Benefit of Mountain States Supply Co. v. Great American Indemnity Co., 105 Utah 11, 140 P.2d 763, 767." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 222. [*Note the ambiguity and non-Christian foundation of the term. Good and Lawful Christians do not need the social compact, for they are already one in Christ Who has determined the limits and boundaries of every man's Lawful acts.]

Looking at this definition, more closely, we see the words "public good," "municipality," "district." These words cannot go unnoticed and must be investigated to arrive at a true conclusion of the subject-matter being conveyed. The questions obviously arise; 1. How does any one know what is good without the revealed Law in Christ? And, 2. Who are the "public?" The public is everyone, Christian and human. So the public good must be good for both the Christian and the human. This is an impossibility. Humans are pagans, infidels, heretics, apostates, legal entities, and natural brute beasts. Good and Lawful Christians are none of those. Humans know not the ways of God, yet they know Him. This is a major aspect of the Great Divide.

Because Law already exists, and the Inherited Rights are already established by it, then the Right to establish the outward form, lacking substance in relation to a Good and Lawful Christian, evidenced in a State by the church, antedates the State. In 1649, William Dell made this point in Law quite clear:

"The right church then is not the whole multitude of the people whether good or bad, that join together in an outward form or way of worship.And therefore I shall not speak of this Church. But the church I shall speak of is the true church of the New Testament, which, I say, is not any outward or visible society, gathered together into the consent or use of outward things, forms, ceremonies, worship, as the Churches of men are; neither is it known by seeing or feeling, or the help of any outward sense, as the society of mercers or drapers, or the like; but it is a spiritual and invisible fellowship, gathered together in the unity of faith, hope, and love, and so into the unity of the Son, and of the Father by the Spirit; wherefore it is wholly hid from carnal eyes, neither hath the [*secular] world any knowledge or judgment of it.
"This true church is the communion of Saints, which is the communion believers have with one another; not in the things of the world, nor in the things of man, but in the things of God. For as believers have their union in the Son, and in the Father, so in them also they have their communion; and the communion they have with one another in God cannot be in their own things, but in God's things, even in His light, life, righteousness, wisdom, truth, love, power, peace, joy, &c. This is the true communion of Saints, and this communion of Saints is the true Church of God.
"Now this true Church of God differs from the churches of men in very many particulars, as follows.
"In the churches of men members are admitted through an outward confession of doctrine; but none are admitted into this true church but through a new birth from God and his Spirit. John 3.: Except a man be born again, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, which is the right church of the New Testament.
"The Churches of men knit themselves together into such societies by some outward covenant or agreement among themselves. But the true church is knit into their society among themselves by being first knit unto Christ, their Head; and as soon as ever they are one with Him, they are also one with one another in Him; and are not first one among themselves, and then after one with Christ. So that the true church is a spiritual society knit unto Christ by faith, and knit to one another in Christ by the Spirit and love; and this makes them infinitely more than one than any outward covenant they can engage themselves in, the union wherein God makes us one, passing all the unions wherein we can make ourselves one.
* * *
"Now the true church by the power it hath received from Christ can gather itself together when, and as often as, it pleaseth. The company of believers have power to gather themselves together for their mutual good, instruction, preservation, edification, and for the avoiding or preventing of evil, and that without the consent or authority of any extrinsical and foreign power whatever; else Christ were not a sufficient founder of His church. And if every free society, not subjected to tyranny, hath power in itself to congregate and come together as conveniency and necessity shall require, as is evident in all civil corporations, and in all fraternities and meetings of love; much more hath the Church of Christ, which is the freest society in the world, power to meet together into a communion of Saints, though it be without and against the consent and authority of the powers of the world. "As the church of the faithful hath power from Christ to meet together, soto appoint its own outward orders [*constitutions] .And these things each church or communion of Saints may order by itself, according to the wisdom of the Spirit, so it observe these rules. That they do all things in love, seeing all laws without love [*in the Spirit] are tyranny; and so whatsoever is not from, and for, love [*in the Spirit], is not to be appointed; and if it be, it is again to be abolished; seeing no text of the scripture itself, if it build not up love, is rightly interpreted. They are to do all things for peace.They must appoint nothing as of necessity; there is no more pestilent doctrine in the church than to make those things necessary which are not necessary. For thus the liberty of faith is extinguished, and the consciences of men ensnared." William Dell, The Way of True Peace and Unity (1649), cited by Woodhouse, Puritanism and Liberty (1965), pp. 303-310. [*Insertions added].

Law then is to declare and settle questions between the ruler and the ruled. However, it must be in Truth, not in fiction:

"Les fictions naissent de la loi, et non la loi des fictions --Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2142.

Constitutions, whenever framed by the Body of Believers in Christ therefore settle the controversy between their author and ruler, the subject-matter of them, and those who will occupy the benefices enumerated in them. These truths were, at an earlier time, written of as a matter of fact:

"The greatest commotions in kingdoms have for the most part been raised and maintained for and about power and liberties of the rulers and the ruled, together with the due bounds and limits of either. And the like hath fallen out in churches, and is continued to this day in the sharpest contentions (though now the seat of the war is changed) who should be the first adequate and complete subject of that church-power which Christ hath left on earth; how bounded, and to whom committed. This controversy is in a special manner the lot of these present times." Thomas Goodwin and Philip Nye's Introduction to John Cotton's The Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (1644) cited by Woodhouse, Puritanism and Liberty (1965), p. 293.

Note carefully, the Powers to do any of the above Lawfully belong solely to the church--not human beings--because these Powers appertain solely to the Noble and Sacred Ministerial Office of Christ. This Truth in Law is vital, for by it only truly Lawful governments exist and without it no Lawful government can ever exist. This implies a different source of right than what human beings are able to claim. This Right is vested by Inheritance in and through Christ Jesus and is fully recognized by current courts:

"Despite repeated statements implying the contrary, it is the source of the right sued upon, and not the ground upon which federal jurisdiction is founded, which determines the governing law." Handbook of the Law of the Federal Courts (1983), p. 396, n. 47, quoting Maternally Yours Inc. v. Your Maternity Shop Inc. (1956), C.A.2d, 234 F.2d 538, 540 n. 1. [Emphasis added.]
"Although it has been vigorously asserted that the rights specified in the Amends. 1 to 8 are among the privileges and immunities protected by this clause, and although this view has been defended by many distinguished jurists, including several justices of the federal Supreme Court, that court holds otherwise and asserts that it is the character of the right claimed, whether specified as above or not, that is controlling." State v. Felch (1918), 105 A. 23, 92 Vt. 477. [*Character of a right is determined by its source]. [Emphasis and *insertion added].

Note that this has nothing to do with any derivatives of "citizenship." This has to do solely with Christ's church and the Ministerial Powers He has vested in it in general, and in every True Believer. Purported "rights" of "citizenship" have a source altogether separate and distinct from those solely held in and by the Body of Christ. They are termed in Law "civil rights" and are distinguished from political rights:

"When we speak of a person having a civil right we must necessarily refer to a civil right as distinguished from the elemental idea of rights absolute. We must have in mind a rights given and protected by law, and a person's enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by the law which creates it." Nickell v. Rosenfield (1927), 82 CA 369. [jus gentium] [Emphasis added.]
"Civil Rights are those rights which the municipal law [jus gentium] will enforce " State v. Powers, 51 N.J.L. 432, 17 A. 969. [Emphasis added.]
"Civil rightsare not connected with the organization and administration of government. Winnet v. Adams, 71 Neb. 817, 99 N. W. 681. Or as otherwise defined, civil rights are appertaining to a person in virtue of his citizenship in a state or community. Rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action. Also a term applied to certain rights secured to citizens of the United States by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution and various acts of Congress made in pursuance thereof." State of Iowa v. Railroad Co., C. C. Iowa, 37 F. 498, 3 L.R.A. 554; State v. Powers, 51 N.J.L. 432, 17 A. 969.
"The law merchant, of which insurance law is a part, is said to be a part of international law, but is international only in the sense that the principles applicable are those that are recognized in all civilized nations... ..that is, the law merchant is a portion of the jus gentium [*because it is commercial law] but not of the jus inter gentes." Vance on Insurance (1951), p. 12. [*Insertion added].

They are also of a private nature, having nothing common in and with the Body of Believers. This is another major aspect of the Great Divide.

The lex loci of Christ and His church then governs all within the Law, and that created to be an outward form, or evidence, of the church:

"The earth is the LORD's, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. For He hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods. Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in His holy place? He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully." Psalm 24:1-4.
"LEX LOCI. The law of the place. This may be of several descriptions but, in general, lex loci is used for lex loci contractus.
"The 'lex loci' furnishes the standard of conduct. Russ v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 220 N.C. 715, 18 S.E.2d 130, 131; it governs as to all matters going to the basis of the right of action itself. State of Maryland for the Use of Joynes v. Coard, 175 Va. 571, 9 S.E.2d 454, 458.
"The substantive rights of parties to action are governed by "lex loci" or law of place where rights were acquired or liabilities incurred. Sullivan v. McFetridge, Sup., 55 N.Y.S.2d 511, 516; Gray v. Blight, C.C.A.Colo., 112 F.2d 696, 699." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 1056. [Emphasis added.]
"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." John Quincy Adams quoted by Thornton, J. Wingate, The Pulpit of the American Revolution (1860).

Rights acquired in and through Christ Jesus are governed by the lex loci of the church revealed in Scripture. God's Law therefore is to rule in all situations, at all times, all other forms of law not with standing. Therefore, the right to establish States under the church does not find its source in the constitutions themselves. This is in full compliance with Scripture:

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and His Name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon His kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this." Isaiah 9:6-7. [Emphasis added.]

Constitutions are: One, not contracts with the subject-matter they create; and, Two, covenants by and between those establishing them. Thus, the State is always the possession of the church and is their interface to those outside the Body of Christ. This is evident from both Texas v. White, supra, and Hamilton v. St. Louis County Court, supra, and the following:

"CONSTITUTE. 1. To station [*put] in a given place [*venue], state [*status, condition], or character [*persona]; esp., to appoint or ordain to an office or function of; as, we constituted him captain; constituted authorities. 2. To set up; establish, as a law, a proceeding, etc. 3. To form; make up, as being the constitutive element or elements." Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (1925), page 219. [*Insertions added.]

Again, William Dell in 1649:

"Now one thing more I shall add touching the church's power to appoint its own orders:that the true church hath power to appoint these outward orders, not for itself only, but also for its officers (which also are part of itself), and it is not to suffer its officers to frame or impose such on it. For the church is not the officers', but the officers are the church's." William Dell, The Way of True Peace and Unity (1649), cited in Woodhouse, Puritanism and Liberty (1965), p. 310.

And, nothing has changed:

"The inhabitants of the city of New York have a vested right [*incorporeal property right] in the city hall, markets, water works, ferries, and other public property, which cannot be taken from them, any more than their individual dwellings, or store-houses. Their rights, in this respect, rest not merely upon the constitution, but the great principles of Eternal Justice, which lie at the foundation of all free governments." Benson v. The Mayor & c. of New York (1850), 10 Barb. 223, 244-245.

And, who is to be served:

"SERVIENT. Serving; subject to a service or servitude. A servient estate is one which is burdened with a servitude. Burdine v. Sewell, 92 Fla. 375, 109 So. 648, 652; Saratoga State Waters Corporation v. Pratt, 227 N.Y. 429, 125 N.E. 834, 838." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 1534.
"SERVIENT TENEMENT. An estate [*State] in respect of which a service is owing, as the dominant tenement [*Christ's church] is that to which the service is due. Northwestern Improvement Co. v. Lowry, 104 Mont. 289, 66 P.2d 792, 110 A.L.R. 605." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 1534.
"FIEF. The right bestowed on any body, beneficium: *feudam (technical term). The estate held as a fief, pradium velut fiduciarium datum (after Liv., 32, 28, p. in.): praedium beneficiarium (after Sen. Ep., 90, 3). To give any body any thing as a fief, praedium velut fiduciarium alicui dare (after Liv., 32, 28, p. in.): to receive any thing as a fief, praedium velut fiduciarium ab aliquo accipere (after the above passage): landed property held as a fief, ager velut fiduciarius (after Sen. Ep. 90, 2): that may be held as a fief, quod velut beneficium dari potest (in forensic Latin, feudalis): the deed relating to the fief; i.e., the deed of feoffment, literae beneficiariae: the heir of an estate held as a fief, heres praedii velut fiduciarii; heres praedii beneficiarii." Riddle, English-Latin Lexicon (1849), p. 297. [Emphasis added.]

If all this sounds strange to you, be patient. The State is always the servient tenement or fief in relation to the church. This statement is true, however, only if you can evidence that you are one in Christ Jesus having this relation to the State. This is evident from the testimony of Christ:

"But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given Me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of Me, that the Father hath sent Me." John 5:36. [Emphasis added.]
"Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me." John 10:25. [Emphasis added.]

In other words, the same works that you do bear witness of you and by Whom you are led and sent. This has everything to do with being "right heirs" in and through Christ Jesus, through Whom all Lawful Powers flow.

A Foreword to

"How the Church Fell from Grace"

by Pastor Warren Lee,

The church at Kaweah

Editor's Note: All of us at The Christian Jural Society Press wish to extend our heart felt gratitude to Pastor Warren Lee for the following special Foreword he has written for the book, "How the Church Fell from Grace," by John William and John Joseph.

Lo this, we have searched it, so it is; hear it, and know thou it for thy good. Job 5:27.

The subject of the unregistered or unlicensed church is not new. It is a doctrine that has been "searched" out, "it is so;" and we beseech the reader to "know it" for their individual "good," as well as the church's well-being.

Forty-five years ago when God called me into an independent pastoral ministry, being fresh out of Bible College, I asked various pastors, deacons, and elders, "How do I start a church?" The answer was unanimous-- "you must incorporate."

Not knowing any better, at the time, I followed the flock to the State's slaughter-house and incorporated "The Church of Jesus Christ of Venice, California."

Deep in my spirit I sensed it was wrong, but all the other "Churches" I had attended were corporations, so I didn't know any other way.

The padlocking of the Faith Baptist Church in the early 1980's in Louisville, Nebraska, and the subsequent jailing of the pastor became the catalyst for my quest into studying how, "The church of the living God which is the pillar and ground of truth" could extricate itself from the quagmire of State control. I read every thing I could get my hands on concerning the then sprouting unregistered church movement.

Pastors soon began to realize after the Louisville incident, that in ignorance they had opted for something other than the Sovereignty of Christ Jesus over His church; and, that we needed to once again recognize that the Lord Jesus must have "preeminence in all things," and that His church would never subordinate itself to any inferior authority (i.e., the State).

The Ekklesia, or church of Jesus Christ, is made up of all true believers in the Deity of Christ and His substitutionary death on the cross for our sins. The church exists apart from and beyond the control of, and not subject to, any earthly government.

A disciple of Christ should not find it difficult to do right if convinced that you have God's mind in the matter. However, truth can be very emotionally discomfiting for some who become ensnared by a spirit of fear.

When The church at Kaweah began the process of un-incorporating, I thoroughly explained to the congregation the Scriptural basis for the decision. There were some folks in the church that became frightened. They feared "What might happen to the church;" they feared the Internal Revenue Service repercussions, and the bottom line was they feared the loss of their tax deductions.

We felt the loss in terms of numbers: our music leader, organist, and pianist all quit. About one-third of the congregation and about two-thirds of the weekly tithes were suddenly gone.

The church at the time was fifty thousand dollars in debt. We were also without a pianist or organist for almost a year; however, within four years we were totally out of debt. We in truth give all the glory to God. "Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it."

There is a temporal cost to follow the way of Christ Jesus, but the long term rewards are worth it. Hearing God's promises is not sufficient. Acting on His Word and relying on His Providence and Blessings is sufficient.

It has now been over five years since our exodus from the bondage of Egypt (Exodus 20:2) and returning to His preeminence in all things here in The church at Kaweah. The church at Kaweah now enjoys the Blessings of Liberty in Christ in many, many, fruitful ways. God has blessed us beyond measure and our cup now runneth over. "It is our Lord's doing and it is marvelous in our eyes."

John William and John Joseph have certainly fulfilled the admonition of Job 5:27. The incorporated Church has sold itself out for a bowl of pottage, called 501(c)(3) non-profit, tax exempt status. The authors clearly demonstrate the origin, development, and consequences of church incorporation.

Faced with this evidence the charge to pastors and incorporated Churches every where is, "Come out of her, my people."

Pastor Warren Lee,
The church at Kaweah

On the third day of the eighth month
in the nineteen hundred ninety-eighth year
of the Sovereign Reign of our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus.

Pastor Warren Lee's
Scriptural Notes on Job 5:27

Fulfillment of scriptural admonition of Job 5:27 by John William and John Joseph in writing "How the Church Fell from Grace.":

1. "Lo this" = the church deceived; 501(c)(3) their pursuit.

2. "we have searched it." The origin, development and consequences of church entanglement with the State.

3. Conclusion: "it is so." Compelled by the evidence, they challenge the church to "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." Revelation 18:4.

4. "hear it." "Let these sayings sink down into your ears." Luke 9:44.

5. "know thou it." Hearing, alone, is not enough; truth that does not motivate us to action is of little worth.

6. "for thy good." The blessings of God will be upon His people. "Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and Thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart; for I am called by Thy name, O Lord God of hosts." Jeremiah 15:16.

------------------------------------

Editor's Note: "How the Church Fell from Grace" is 209 pages in 5" x 8" format, with 485 footnotes, Biblical Citations Index, Words Defined Index, and listed Cases and Works Cited. It is available in book form only giving an in-depth understanding of what the Body of Believers face under the 501(c)(3) corporation masquerading as "The Church."

Has the Law been Abolished?

by Larrie Palmer

There is, within the Body of Christ, a view which holds that the law has been abolished for the Christian. And, at first look, this might appear to be so. But a deeper investigation revealed some interesting results.

I have recently engaged a brother in the discussion of this subject and we have discussed the issue in depth. This has, of course, caused me to investigate what the Word of God would have to say and it may be of interest to you to know the result.

I will present my investigation of a number of verses relating to the the issue of the law being abolished or done away with. I have endeavored to make a review of a number of passages which give the indication that the law has been removed or abolished with the advent of Christ. The purpose for this is to confirm what is, in fact, the intended meaning of the texts in the light of their context and their historical- grammatical setting. Further, it should be noted that I have relied on the following resources: Exposition of the Old And New Testaments by John Gill; The Pulpit Commentary; The MacArthur New Testament Commentary by John MacArthur; Matthew Henry's Commentary; Adam Clarke's Commentary; Vines Complete Expository Dictionary of the Old and New Testament; The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge; Strong's Concordance; and, the Authorized King James Version of the Bible. You will notice that these represent a wide cross section of authors, not favoring one particular denomination or system of theology over another as well as covering from the 1700's to today.

Exposition

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage" Galatians 5:1

In Galatia we have a problem that had been plaguing Paul throughout Asia Minor. As he would travel from city to city, Jewish enemies would follow and attempt to cause the new believers to adopt Judaism to their Christianity. This included such practices as circumcision and the keeping of the ceremonial law. Paul, in writing to the Galatians, is seeking to put a stop to the effects of this type of deception. The Galatians were attempting to add works to the gospel of grace.

In the verse cited it is important to define what liberty we are to stand in and what yoke of bondage we are to avoid. The word liberty here is defined in Vine's as setting us free from the bondage we were in -- the bondage of sin. A direct cross reference to this verse (TSK) is Romans 6:18 "Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness." We have not come to a liberty where we can do as we please but rather we have been set free from the power of sin. We have liberty from sin and now may live to righteousness. In being given this liberty we are cautioned not to become entangled again with the yoke of bondage. The word again here signifies that we were once in a yoke of bondage and were delivered. Given the context of being freed from sin, it would be inconsistent to surmise that this yoke is anything but the bondage of sin or self righteousness.

John Gill, a commentator from the 1700's, states that the freedom this verse speaks of is not a freedom from the law but from the penalty of it. We are free "...from the law, the ceremonial law, as an handwriting of ordinances, a rigid severe schoolmaster, and a middle wall of partition, and from all its burdensome rites and institutions; from the moral law as a covenant of works, and as administered by Moses; and from the curse and condemnation of it, its bondage and rigorous exaction, and from all expectation of life and righteousness by the deeds of it; but not from obedience to it, as held forth by Christ, and as a rule of walk and conversation."

It is the law that shows us our sin. If we try to keep the law as a way to cause God to save us we only discover how deep our sin is. The penalty of this sin is death. We walk under this burden. The Galatians had come to a knowledge of grace, that the penalty of the law had been paid. Paul did not want them to return to the bondage of expecting life and righteousness from the law and not the One who paid the penalty. We conclude that this verse does no violence to the law but indicates we have been freed from the bondage or domination of sin.

"But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law" Galatians 5:18

This verse adds a more pointed thought that we are somehow removed from obedience to the law. It is at this point that we must define what being under the law means.

The context of this verse can be very helpful. As we saw in verse one of this chapter we are at liberty from the power of sin in our lives. Paul goes on to say that if we return to the law as a source of salvation and righteousness then we have fallen from Christ's righteousness. He then warns us not to use our liberty as an occasion for sin and then we are instructed to walk in the Spirit and not in the flesh. Next, we come to the verse in question. Following this, the discussion continues outlining the works of the flesh and then the works of the Spirit-filled Christian. Note with care that in verse 17 Paul tells pointedly about the Spirit and flesh in battle and then says "but." This word offers a contrast and we are told that if we are led by the Spirit we are not under the law. If one is being led by the Spirit he is no longer under the dominion of sin and the penalty of the law. He is no longer in the position that he "cannot do the things that he would" (v. 17). Matthew Henry writes: "...it will appear that you are not under the law, not under the condemning, though you are still under the commanding power of it..."

Galatians 3:10 states that as many as are under the works of the law are under the curse. What is this curse? The dominion and bondage of sin of which the penalty is death. Matthew Henry reminds us here that the man who labors or toils under the law for justification will only be brought to his true condition -- sin, bondage and deserving of wrath. Romans 6:14 ("For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace") shows this same connection. If you are under the law you are under the penalty and dominion of sin.

We can conclude here that no longer being under the law is a reference to being freed from the bondage and penalty of sin.

"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross" Colossians 2:14

This particular verse requires a close look at the Greek to determine what the handwriting of ordinances that are against us really are. Does it indicate the law? The Greek word represented by handwriting here is cheirographon which, according to both Thayer's and Vine's, has its historical meaning in the idea of a certificate of debt much like an I.O.U. of today. When placed next to the word ordinances or dogma, which in the Greek means decree, doctrine or ordinance, we render a certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us.

What then is the debt? The debt owed is the penalty for sin. This penalty is required for the breaking of the law. As we know, it is Christ who has paid this debt. It has been blotted out. The nailing to the cross of this debt is metaphorically speaking of Christ's death.

The term blotting out has significance as well. During the time that these books were first written there was the practice of using water to make the ink on the page become soluble, then the area was blotted to remove the ink/water solution effectively removing what had been written. It is important that, in this process, the book remains intact and the contents of the book is not nullified.

It is noted by the commentators that the context here would support an understanding that the ceremonial law has been annulled by the work of Christ. This is clear when looking at verse 16, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days."

We conclude then that the debt owed for sin has been blotted out by the work of Christ.

"Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace." Ephesians 2:15

As we proceed it should be evident that many of these verses are cross-references for one another. This fact is important as it is my intention to allow the Scripture to interpret itself preventing as little violence as possible on my part. This verse is a direct cross reference with Colossians 2:14. This will play heavily in our understanding of this passage. The law of commandments contained in ordinances here are the same ordinances in Colossians 2:14. The Pulpit Commentary gives the following exposition of this passage (Ephesians 2:15):

"'In ordinances' limits the law of commandments. The law abolished or superseded by Christ was the law of positive requirements embodied in things decreed, evidently the ceremonial law of the Jews, certainly not the moral law ("Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law Romans 3:31, KJV").

From the Pulpit Commentary:

"This leads us to the view that God's law, the revelation of his will relative to his people's conduct, given in successive developments - patriarchal, mosaical, prophetical - is, with such modifications as have been made by the crucifixion and the priesthood of Christ, and by the mission and work of the Holy Spirit, God's law relative to his people's conduct still. The cross and priestly work of Christ as we are taught by this epistle and the epistle to the Hebrews, do for all Christians eliminate from this law its ceremonial prescriptions altogether; but its moral prescriptions, more fully perfected by the moral teaching of Jesus and his apostles, are still incumbent upon them. Those Christians who really give themselves up to the Spirit to be taught and animated by him who are as St. Paul says "spiritual", these use this law (as Calvin phrases it) as a doctrina liberalis: the law of the Spirit of life within them leads and enables them to recognize, and so to speak assimilate, the kindred import of the law embodied in the letter; which thus ministers to their instruction and consolation. The letter of the law is now their helper, no longer their absolute rigid rule."

We conclude then that the ceremonial law has been done away with but the moral law still stands for our use.

"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." Romans 10:4

This verse presents a different profile than others that we have looked at so far in that it does not deal with the ceremonial law as such or the freeing from the penalty of the law.

As we look at the context of this verse we note that justification is the theme of this passage. Paul starts with the statement that he wants his brethren of Israel to be saved. He goes on to explain that the Jews have sought their own righteousness and not the righteousness of God. He then states that Christ is the end or telos of the law. When this usage is compared with others in the New Testament the meaning can be drawn out as purpose. It is the purpose of the law to bring men to Christ's righteousness, not to provide the means for justification. So the word end here does not indicate that the law has come to its end or termination. In defense of the usage of telos I offer the following: In Strong's Exhaustive Concordance the word purpose appears as one of the meanings for the word telos (5056). Thayer's Greek Lexicon concurs in the sense that a point or goal is to be reached. Vine's Expository Dictionary states that the sense of Romans 10:4 is the "ending of a state or process." I draw from these that the word here indicates a goal or state to be reached, implying a process. The definition of purpose is: A result or an effect that is intended or desired; an intention.

The phrase "for righteousness" is key to interpreting this verse. Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth. Many of that day were attempting to gain righteousness by the law but, as Galatians 3:10 points out, the law is a schoolmaster that leads us to Christ for His righteousness. It is important to note here that it seems that I might believe that justification can come from the law. Let me state categorically that justification is by faith in Jesus Christ and His atoning work alone. This is what this verse is saying. Men are driven to Christ by the law as seeing what they really are. They realize that their obedience is impossible and throw themselves at the feet of Christ believing Him and receiving His righteousness. The verse does not end the law but shows what its purpose is -- to drive men to Christ. Note also that, if the definitive abolishment of the law was to be meant here, the word teleo (5055) could have been used. Teleo means to end, complete, execute or discharge, as defined by Strong's Exhaustive Concordance.

So, the law is not terminated here but its purpose is revealed.

"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers..." 1 Timothy 1:9

In considering 1 Timothy 1:9 we must include verse 8 ("But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully"). The law is good if used lawfully. What is most interesting about verse 9 is the usage of "righteous man." The word for righteous here is dikaios which means equitable or innocent. It does not indicate a justified man or dikaioo would have been used. I conclude, as do most commentators, that this "righteous man" is one who is living in relative innocence. The law was rather for those who are mentioned after. As Jesus said, those who are well do not need a doctor but those who are sick.

Having now dealt in detail with a number of verses we will look at some others is light of what we have learned.

Given the fact that the law does not bring justification we also understand that the law will not perfect. In dealing with Hebrews 7:15-19, ("And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. For there is verily a disannuling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God") we understand that the context is the ceremonial law and the Levitical priesthood. As has already been pointed out, these cannot justify a man.

We know that the Old Covenant cannot stand with the New because it cannot provide what Christ has. This routine of institutions and rituals cannot be relied upon to meet the need for righteousness. Most commentators relate Hebrews 8:13 to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem by the Romans. The context of the surrounding chapters would indicate the ceremonial aspects of the Old Covenant are in view and we know that these have indeed vanished away with the excellency of Christ's sacrifice and the place where they were conducted is no more.

So, what is the Christian's relationship to the law? I would illustrate the point like this:

Colossians 3:9 says, "Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds." Note that Paul is commanding, not suggesting, that Christians ought not to lie. This is found to be in accord with the moral law of God as found in Exodus 20:16 which says, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." When we find these connections (all of the Ten Commandments except the Sabbath are restated in the New Testament) as exhortations or commands from the apostles, are we to conclude that we are under the law if we follow them? Only if we define being under the law as having to do with any rule of conduct. But the indwelling of the Spirit witnesses that we should not lie.

So then, are we in bondage to the law if we walk in obedience to the exhortation to "lie not"? No, rather because of the Spirit's indwelling, we strive not to lie. We do not want to grieve Him. We want to honor God in our lives by having a walk worthy of His calling. Therefore the law has become a rule of conduct for us. While it is true that we will fail to walk perfectly, we have no condemnation. All we need do is confess. We do not seek works for justification but rather to the glory of God as a proof of our faith, as James says.

Conclusions

Having covered a number of these passages we can begin to draw some conclusions. I am sure that there are more verses that we could dissect but will these verses now stand in opposition to what we have learned? The consistency of the scripture will stand this test, no doubt.

It is evident that there is a division of the law into various parts of which, one, is the ceremonial. This part of the law has indeed been fulfilled in the coming of Christ and we see this as the consistent teaching of scripture. We cannot draw from this though that all of the law has been wiped away. God's moral law cannot change or be set aside. It is that which holds our universe together. But there is fulfillment. When Christ came He provided the one sacrifice that met all the requirements of God. None other is necessary. The Sabbath is similar. Christ is our rest. No other Sabbath is necessary.

We also can see that the phrase "under the law" is to be interpreted as being under the domination and the penalty of sin. This is the yoke of bondage that we all faced as unsaved and Paul rightly asks the Galatians why they would want to return to this state!

Finally, we can see the evidence that the law was never meant to be a vehicle for justification. The only way to be justified before God is in Christ's righteousness.

I hope that this study has brought some clarity to the issue. The law of God is not to be feared by the Christian but rather embraced and understood in the power of the Holy Spirit to guide and direct us in working out our own salvation.

Maintaining general delivery

With the positive response towards last month's "Maintaining general delivery," and several requests for further information on this vital subject, the following is presented.

This month, we will examine and analyze the Postmaster letter below, and then further along we will comment on the response letter that I have composed for rebuttal, which you will also find below.

These two letters are from an actual encounter with a Postmaster. The main texts and capitalization are the same as the originals. The only changes are in the names and locations, for purposes of discretion.

The Postmaster Letter

Postmaster
Jamestown Post Office
United States Postal Service

DATE June 10, 1998

SUBJECT: GENERAL DELIVERY USAGE

TO: Mr. Robert Joseph
General Delivery
Jamestown, OR 96490-9998

Dear Mr. Joseph,

Please fill out the enclosed General Delivery Service Application and return it to a window clerk for processing.

It appears that you are not using general delivery as it was intended. General delivery is a temporary means of delivery for three reasons:

a. For transients and customers not permanently located.

b. For customers who want post office box service when boxes are not available.

c. For customers who are not eligible to receive carrier delivery.

I am asking for the application to be completed to determine where you reside. This will help us to find out if you are eligible for carrier delivery or post office box service, of which both are available.

You want any mail received at general delivery held for longer that 30 days, if necessary. This demonstrates that you intend on using general delivery as a holding service, which it is not. As you stated, subject to 1.2, general delivery mail can be held for longer periods if requested by either the sender or the addressee. Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) D930, 1.2 states that a postmaster may refuse or restrict general delivery for two reasons:

1. To a customer who is unable to present suitable identification.

2. To a customer whose mail volume or service level (e.g., mail accumulation) cannot reasonably be accommodated.

If you cannot comply with my request, I will have to enforce DMM, D930, 1.2.

I think that caller service would best fit your needs, as it would be good for 6 months and you could pick it up any time the post office is open, as you do now with general delivery mail.

In your letter, you make numerous references to obsolete materials, publications or bulletins. Past issue of Domestic Mail Manual (DMM, Issue 53, January 1, 1998, is the Postal Service's authority on the delivery of the mail. The old Post Office Manual became obsolete when the various manuals such as the DMM were completed after Postal Reorganization in 1970.

The article that you referred to in Postal Bulletin 21877, was addressing General delivery Service for a homeless person and how it could be extended. One thing correctly addressed was the need for suitable identification, so again, please comply with my request concerning the application. I find it hard to comprehend you as homeless with the fine computer you use to manufacture the letters you send me.

You went to great lengths to show that you are not a customer. Under your signature is the line: (Patron) Robert Joseph. The Random House College Dictionary defines a patron as: "a person who is a customer".

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Yours for better service, Don Masters

The first thing one must notice when analyzing a letter of this kind is: what is its purpose? Is it a final decision, or is it a probe to gather information for later use against you?

In the case of the letter to the right, it is a probe. First, note that it is termed "SUBJECT: GENERAL DELIVERY USAGE," "using" being the important theme on the part of the Postmaster. Second, he is requesting the Patron to fill out the "General Delivery Service Application (form PS 1527)." Note the blatant probe concerning the Application, "to determine where you reside." This is an obvious 'fishing expedition.' Do not buy into these 'innocent' requests 'hook, line, and sinker.'

You will notice that in the letter, the Postmaster refers to previous information he received from the Patron. That is due to previous letters the Patron had written to him. These letters, which I don't have room to include in this article, were full of errors on the Patrons part, but were not fatal to his case. They gave the Postmaster pause to further investigate the Patron's status. That is all that is going on here.

The Postmaster has obviously found himself in the position of having to make threats, excuses, a bribe with 'caller service,' his one-sided definition of 'patron, 'grabbing for straws' and innuendos (computer letter, etc.), due to the strength of the previous letters from the Patron. Note how important it is to him to make the patron a 'customer.' If he had a leg to stand on, he would simply write a letter saying, "Your General Delivery Service has been terminated." But in this case, he is not yet willing to 'trespass.' He must first gather further evidence that will protect his position. That is the purpose of the 'probe.'

The majority of the letter is self-explanatory. The response letter should fill in any questions the reader may have concerning the Postmaster's military tactics and his demands for 'compliance.'

Response Letter

From:

Joseph Robert
to be called for in general delivery
Sumner,Washington

On the < > day of the < > month in the
Nineteen hundred ninety-eighth year of
Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ

To:

Postmaster Rick Huster
Sumner Post Office

Greetings in the Name of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ.

As in my previous writings, I address you here in your capacity as the postmaster in Sumner under The Postmaster General in his capacity under The Post Office Department.

The purpose of this writing is to clarify any misconceptions I may have conveyed to you in my.previous writings to you. After having called my First-Class mail Matter forth from the general delivery section at The Post Office Department marked June 10, 1998 from you, with an accompanying 'General Delivery Service Application,' I recognized in your writing.that you expressed many presumptions and statements in its contents that are based on facts not in.evidence.

These erroneous presumptions on your part are as follows:

1. That I am a resident or have a residence.

2. That I am a customer of The Postal Service.

3. That I seek 'General Delivery Service,' or 'use' of general delivery.

4. That calling my First-Class mail Matter forth from the general delivery section at The Post Office Department, is a 'service.'

5. That I seek to use general delivery as a customer 'holding service.'

6. That patrons and transients are the same as customers.

7. That I am a Mr. or Mister.

8. That being homeless deprives me of access to a computer or type writer.

I will here address these presumptive errors in your beliefs:

1. As I have previously stated, I am not a resident, or have a residence, but, that I am transient,.homeless, and a sojourner on the land.

2. As I have previously stated, I am not a customer of The Postal Service. I am a transient and.homeless Christian, and have always called my First-Class mail Matter forth from the general delivery section at The Post Office Department wherever I happen to sojourn, for fellowship between.the Body of Believers and myself, and not for any commercial purposes.

3. I have never received or seek to receive 'General Delivery Service.' I have never 'used' or seek to.'use' general delivery or the 'use' of 'caller service.' I have always exercised my traditionally vested.and Inherited Right in general delivery. These traditionally vested and Inherited Rights in general.delivery established for the church, in and through Christ Jesus, existed prior to the creation of The.Postal Service and The Post Office Department. Therefore, the question arises: can the created deny.or disparage the creator? Those that write your DMM are very careful not to. Even under the.international law of belligerent occupation, during time of war vested Rights are not violated by the.occupier, but preserved. I hope and pray that you will take into consideration these political questions,.as they do.

Since I do not seek 'General Delivery Service,' it is impossible for me to fill out the 'General Delivery.Service Application.'

4. Being a Good and Lawful Christian, calling forth my First-Class mail Matter from the general delivery section at The Post Office Department is not a.service delivered by The Postal Service, but an extended governmental duty of The Postal Service.from The Post Office Department to those exercising their above mentioned vested and Inherited.Rights. History and the nonexistence of legislation touching general delivery clearly shows this.

5. Please note that "general delivery is intended primarily [not exclusively] as a temporary means of.delivery." In addition, please note that at D930, 1.1(a), general delivery is for transients and customers.not permanently located. 1.1 (b) and thereafter addresses the restrictions to customers only, not to.transients. Those learned men and women in the law who write your DMM would not differentiate between 'transient' and 'customer' at 1.1(a) if the two terms conveyed the same meaning, and would not have dropped 'transient' after 1.1(a) if the restrictions applied to transients. I hope and pray that you will note the significance of these differences in Law before you propose your threatened enforcement of 1.2, which applies to customers only.

6. In your writing, you cited The Random House College Dictionary for determining what a 'patron' is. Since that dictionary has no standing in Law, but is simply a commercial book, I would refer you to State v. Board of Trust of Vanderbilt University, 129 Tenn. 279; and, Carroll v. Leemon Special School Dist., 175 Ark. 274, wherein 'patron' is defined as, "In ordinary usage, [a patron is] one who protects, countenances, or supports some person or thing." As I hope you can see, 'patron' has a commercial, and a non-commercial, definition. When I refer to myself as being a 'patron,' I mean it in the non-commercial sense; that is, I am one who supports and encourages, and in deed, seeks to protect those sacred institutions, such as general delivery, that are vested in all Good and Lawful Christians, solely by the Grace of God, and for His glory.

7. Being a Good and Lawful Christian and ministerial officer of Christ, I do not attach, or allow to be attached, commercial designations such as Mister or Mr. to my Christian Appellation, for to do so is an abomination unto my Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, Who I minister for, and Who I am a bondservant of.

8. Being a transient and homeless Christian, and a sojourner on the land, does not deprive me of access to a computer or typewriter through my fellow Brothers and Sisters in Christ who have been blessed with such.

As a side note, I want to make it clear to you that I do not look to any Postal Service publications or rules, obsolete or otherwise, for my Right in general delivery. I have previously, and in this writing, pointed these sections out to you simply to display to you that those in the past and those that write your guidelines, recognized then, and recognize today, the protections that must be left in place according to Law, beyond the reach of The Post Office Department and The Postal Service. The following maxim of law clearly shows this:

"Ecclesia est infra aetatem et in custodia domini regis, qyi tenetur jura et haereditates ejusdem manu tenere et defendere -- The church is under age, and in the custody of the king, who is bound to uphold and defend its rights and inheritances."

With having no other way of accessing my First-Class mail Matter except in general delivery, I hope and pray that you will, after taking all of the above into consideration, reconsider any proposed decision to deny my vested and Inherited Right in general delivery, in order that I can continue to fellowship with the Body of Believers and live under The Law of Peace.

I would be pleased to discuss these matters with you at your convenience if you find it to be necessary.

May Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ continue to Richly Bless you,

Robert Joseph

Following the usual greetings and salutations in His name, the first paragraph must set the venue and jurisdiction in which the matter is to be addressed. You are writing to him in that capacity. Any other way, you are speaking to a dead corpse (in Law) of the commercial corporation known as 'The Postal Service.'

The next order of address is to point out the errors in his presumptions which are based on facts not in evidence. If these erroneous presumptions are not rebutted, they will stand as 'truth' to the Postmaster, and will be considered 'evidence' of your lack of status to maintain yourself 'in' general delivery.

The word "in" when referring to general delivery is very important here. If you are everywhere 'in' general, and nowhere specific, you are a 'sojourner,' and not a commercial 'resident.' When in commerce and under the thumb of the lex mercatoria, there is nothing 'general,' for everything is 'private' and 'specific.'

Having a 'home,' 'telephone number,' 'residence,' 'driver's licence' or 'being a customer' and 'using General Delivery Service,' and other such commercial indicators makes you that regulatable entity the Postmaster is looking for. These are the 'human toys' you must avoid for maintaining general delivery.

It is important to tell the Postmaster that you are in general delivery specifically for fellowship between you and the Body of Believers. There are many ways of fellowship. It is the mode and character of that fellowship that determines whether you are in a commercial activity and regulatable.

"Calling your First-Class Matter forth from general delivery" is a very specific term, and is scripturally related (see John 11:43-44). All mail in transit is 'dead' until it is delivered to the recipient. The mode in which it is received is of uppermost importance here. Free delivery to an address is a commercial benefit (remaining dead), whereas "calling forth" the Matter in general delivery "brings that mail Matter to life" in a non-commercial mode. These are the Inherited Rights of all Good and Lawful Christians that do all things in His name, being His ministerial officers executing His Testament and Holy Writ.

As evidenced in this response letter, The Postal Service do not have the ability to subvert the Law. All of the commercial presumptions are rebuttable, and must be rebutted. The following anti-Christian commercial words need to be studied on your part so that you will be able to decipher these types of letters for rebuttal purposes:

Service, use, customer, resident, home, General Delivery, Application, addressee, carrier, identification, comply, Mr., etc.

The most important truth you want to convey to the Postmaster is the fact that the church under Christ Jesus is in full control of, but outside of, all activities that exist, The Postal Service's included. Never give up this ground, for to do so is to partake of the disparagement of His church and Dominions.

In closing, study these letters and their words, search Scripture, and:

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15.

Separation of Church and State

by John Joseph

Many of us throughout our short lives have heard many times of a wall separating the Christ's church from the State, and that, religion has no place in politics. This is the position taken by the United States Supreme Court. But the court also noted and declared that the religion of secular humanism is the religion of the current provisional government. See Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), 367 U.S. 494.

This short article is to prove to you that the separation does, in deed, and in Law exist, but not in the manner in which it has just been described by the secular humanists who have not the mind of Christ:

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor 2:14.

Starting with the basics of Law, the reason of the Law is the soul of the Law and the highest Reason is that which determines in favor of Religion, so that the highest Law is that Law which favors and preserves the Religion of Good and Lawful Christian Men and Women, which is their Inheritance, preserving their Liberties by governing and embracing their traditions, customs and usages. With this statement we can find that the Law quite agrees with all of the above:

"Ratio legis est anima legis --The reason of the Law is the soul of the Law." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2160; and,
"Summa ratio est quae pro religione facit --That is the highest law which favors religion." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2164; and,
"Summa est lex quae pro religione facit --That is the highest law which favors religion." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2164; and,
"La ley favour l'inheritance d'un home --The law favors a man's inheritance." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2142; and,
"Nil sin prudenti fecit ratione vetustas --Antiquity did nothing without a good reason." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2148; and,

All acts against this Reason are un-Lawful...:

"Nihil quod est contra rationem est licitum --Nothing against reason is lawful." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2146,

... because they undermine the Foundation upon which the state rests: Christianity, and the state of Christendom:

"CHRISTENDOM, n. [ME. cristendom; AS. cristendom, Christianity, from Cristen, Christian, and dom, domain, jurisdiction, from dom, to do.] "1. Christianity. [Obs.] [This is the Law.] 2. The territories, countries, or regions chiefly inhabited by those who profess to the Christian religion. [This is the territory.] 3. Christians collectively. [This is the people.] 4. Baptism; christening. [Obs.]" Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969), p. 321.
"COMMON WEAL, COMMONWEAL. The body politic, state, community XIV; the general good, public welfare XV. orig. and properly two words, rendering L. res communis; cf. weal public (XV) rep. L. bonum publicum, F. le bien publique. See WEAL. In the sense of 'state' in XVI more esp. Sc., and now archaic or rhetorical." Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966), "Addenda," p. 1025. [Emphasis added.]
"COMMONWEALTH. Public welfare XV; the body politic, state, community; in spec. fig. and transf. Uses, e.g. c. of Christendom, of learning, of nations XVI; republic, or democratic state; spec. (hist.) The republican government established under Oliver Cromwell XVII. See WEALTH. Both common weal and common wealth were at first used indiscriminately in the senses 'public welfare' and 'body politic' but in XVI commonwealth became the ordinary Eng. term for the latter sense, whence the latter sense 'republic' was developed." Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966), "Addenda," p. 1025. [Emphasis added.]
"WEAL. wil wealth, riches; welfare OE.; the public good xv. OE. wela=OS. welo, (cf. OHG. wela, wola adv.) :- Wgerm. welon, f. wel-; see WELL. In the sense of w. public (xv) rendering L. bonum publicum, F. le bien publique, COMMONWEAL (L. res communis or publica, F. le bien commun)." Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966), p. 996.

So far there is no separation of which the world of humans speak. Thus, to preserve the state, and its Good and Lawful Christians, there must be laws made to this end of punishing evil doers, who are destroyers of it. In looking at the maxims of Law, we find that:

"Causae ecclesiae publicis causis aequiparantur --The cause of the Church is a public cause." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2127.

This being the case, the Religion of Christians--Christianity--must play a major role in the preservation of the state. For, on what basis would law in the community or state rest? Without settled and fixed Law, how would, or, could crime be punished?

"Every system of law known to civilized society generated from or had as its component one of three well known systems of ethics, Pagan, stoic, or Christian. The common law draws its subsistence from the latter, its roots go deep into that system, the Christian concept of right and wrong or right and justice motivates every rule of equity. It is the guide by which we dissolve domestic frictions and the rule by which all legal controversies are settled." Strauss v. Strauss (1941), 3 So.2d 727, 728.

Man cannot create law independent of, fixed, and greater than himself for himself. This is seen in the "law of nature":

"The law of nature is 'those fit and just rules of conduct which the Creator has prescribed to man as a dependent [*upon God, his Creator] and social being, and which are to be ascertained from the the deductions of right reason, though they may be more precisely known and more explicitly declared by divine revelation.' Wightman v. Wightman, N.Y., 4 Johns.Ch. 343, 349." Words and Phrases, vol. 24A, Permanent Edition, p. 102. [Emphasis and *insertion added.]

So if any one claims to be "sovereign," that is clearly a mistake in Law, and in their own mind.

Attempting to base a state's existence on stoic or pagan "principles" is a futile attempt at obtaining any peace or preservation, for without the Prince of Peace, there can be no peace:

"Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep [*preserve] the city [*or state], the watchman waketh but in vain." Psalm 127:1.
"By the word State (spelled with a capital) is meant one of the States of the American Union. Spelled otherwise, it refers to political societies or states in general." Robinson's Elementary Law (1882), note, p. xxxiv. [Insertion in original].

Note: William C. Robinson, LL.D., was a law professor of elementary law in Yale University.

The states before Lincoln's War were all political societies with Christianity the primary and paramount Law; and, not corporations, or bodies politic, which have Roman Imperial Law as their foundation. Christian Jural Societies are unincorporated political societies., simply because they do not look to the State for something they have and can do in Christ.]

Many civilizations were built on foundations other than Christianity, and they all died violent deaths. Both Greece and Rome, the foundations of western secular thought, were sacked and burned, for example. Christian community, or Christian civilization, has never had this problem. It has never fallen because of its inherent validity. Rather, it has been a replacing of it with a foreign artifice of law which has brought ruin. The root of the problem is that when the Humanist man makes law, the law does not apply to him, because he is the "sovereign" of that law. It is for others "beneath" him because he has ascended the "throne." A. Lincoln was the first president to do such in America.

This brings up another item which is the topic of another pamphlet--the Asylum state. In a short synopsis, the Asylum state is for Christians only--not "sovereign" citizens, state citizens, or other ilk of the so-called "patriot" movement. The reason is really quite simple: unless you have consociation with the Law establishing the Asylum state--Christianity--you cannot enter it: "For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ recorded by Brother Matthew, chapter five, verse twenty. And so, just how can your righteousness exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees? Well we first have to look at the words "pharisaic," "pharisaically," "pharisee" to see just what these terms mean in Law:

"Pharisaic. PROP., by the genitive, Pharisaeorum. FIG., simulatus; fictus; or, if necessary, by the genitive, Pharisaeorum.
"Pharisaically, more modo Pharisaeorum; simulate; speciose.
"Pharisee. PROP., Pharisaeus, FIG., pietatus simulator; or, if necessary, Pharisaeus." Riddle, English-Latin Lexicon (1849), p. 512. [Emphasis added.]

The "pharisee" is a facade or artifice of good, but inwardly is evil. Proof of this is Jesus Christ's testimony recorded by Brother Matthew, chapter twenty three, verses one through thirty-six, and We Know Christ's testimony is True:

"Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat [*the seat of judgment]: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. [*Philanthropy, and other "charitable" works, &c.] But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren [*consociation]. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased [*shall be brought low]; and he that shall humble himself [*to God] shall be exalted [*by God]. But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. [*The pharisees then prevent peace from ever returning to Christian People.] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. [*They trap the one whom they are after and recruit him.] Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein [*whether it be God's temple or Satan's temple]. And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. [*Your own righteousness must exceed that of the pharisees, and when you execute the law, look to Christ for determination.] Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. [*You simulate goodness on the outside, but inside are destitute of God.] Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar [when he sought asylum in the temple]. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation." Matthew 23:1-36 [*Insertions added]

Looking at a more modern example, we can see very clearly what Christ Jesus is saying:

"In the meantime, the shrewd and unscrupulous [Pharisees], who have contributed their full share to the bankruptcy [of their fellow Citizens], will economize their means, arrange their affairs, shift their men on the chessboard and shuffle the cards; so that the poor and middle classes may be left with an empty hand, in a game where the rich always win, the poor always lose, and capital [hoarded by the unscrupulous into their banks] lies as a sponge to drink up the hard earnings of labor [through usury and taxation.]" Judge Henry Clay Dean, Crimes of the Civil War and Curse of the Funding System (1868)

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

ADIAPHORA, ADIAPHORISTS. Adiaphora (Gk. "indifferent things"; G, Mitteldinge, "middle matters") refers to matters not regarded as essential to faith which might therefore be allowed in the church. In particular the Lutheran confessions of the sixteenth century speak of adiaphora as "church rites which are neither commanded nor forbidden in the Word of God."

Historically the Adiaphorists were those Protestants who, with Philip Melanchthon, held certain Roman Catholic practices (e.g., confirmation by bishops, fasting rules, etc.) to be tolerable for the sake of church unity. This issue became the focal point for a bitter controversy prompted by the Augsburg Interim forced on the Lutherans in 1548 by Emperor Charles V and accepted by Melanchthon and others in the Leipzing Interim. The Gnesio-Lutherans, led by Nicholas von Amsdorf and Matthias Flacius, objected to the presuppositions and judgments concerning adiaphora that led the Saxon theologians (the "Philippists") to forge the Leipzig Interim. The "Gnesios" set down the basic principle that in a case where confession of faith is demanded, where ceremonies or adiaphora are commanded as necessary, where offense may be given, adiaphora do not remain adiaphora but become matters of moral precept. Those who supported the Interims argued that it was better to compromise appearances in terms of rites and customs than to risk the abolition of Lutheranism in Saxony. Although the controversy over the Interims became unnecessary after the Religious Peace of Augsburg in 1555, the dispute continued, and nearly two hundred tracts appeared discussing stances.

In 1577 the Formula of Concord brought an end to the question for Lutherans by setting forth three fundamental points concerning the nature of genuine adiaphora. First, genuine adiaphora is defined as ceremonies neither commanded nor forbidden in God's Word and not as such, or in and of themselves, divine worship or any part of it (Matt. 15:9). This evangelical principle is integral to the very cornerstone of Reformation theology; it cuts off at the source all false claims of human tradition and authority in the church. The second major point about genuine adiaphora is that the church does have the perfect right and authority to alter them so long as this is done without offense, in an orderly manner, so as to rebound to the church's edification (Rom. 14; Acts 16, 21). The third assertion goes to the heart of the entire matter: at a time of confession, when the enemies of God's Word seek to suppress the pure proclamation of the gospel, one must confess fully, in word and deed, and not yield, even in adiaphora. Here it is not a question of accommodating oneself to the weak, but of resisting idolatry, false doctrine, and spiritual tyranny (Col. 2; Gal. 2, 5). In sum, the Formula of Concord's position included adiaphora within the domain of Christian liberty, which may be defined as consisting of the freedom of believers from the curse (Gal. 3:13) and coercion (Rom. 6:14) of the law and from human ordinances. This liberty is the direct result of justification.

Outside the Lutheran tradition more rigid forms of Protestantism developed, such as the English Puritans, who tended to hold that everything not explicitly allowed in the Bible was forbidden. Others, such as the Anglican communion, were less stringent and regarded many traditional practices, though without scriptural warrant, as adiaphora. Adiaphoristic debates continued to develop periodically. In 1681 a controversy arose between Lutherans regarding participation in amusements. J. F. JOHNSON. See also CONCORD, FORMULA OF; MELANCHTHON, PHILIP; FLACIUS, MATTHIAS; AMSDORF, NICHOLAS VON. Bibliography. R. Preus and W. Rosin, eds., A Contemporary Look at the Formula of Concord. Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary.

The following is from Matthew Henry's Commentaries on the Whole Bible

The Law and Promise

"Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem [*Christ's church] which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we [*the members of the Body of Christ--the church], brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we [*of the church in Christ] are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free." Gal 4:21-31 [Emphasis & *insertions added.]

Brother Matthew Henry's commentary on these verses:

"In these verses the apostle illustrates the difference between believers who rested in Christ only and those judaizers who trusted in the law, by a comparison taken from the story of Isaac and Ishmael. This he introduces in such a manner as was proper to strike and impress their minds, and to convince them of their great weakness in departing from the truth, and suffering themselves to be deprived of the liberty of the gospel: Tell me, says he, you that desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? He takes it for granted that they did hear the law, for among the Jews it was wont to be read in their public assemblies every sabbath day; and, since they were so very fond of being under it, he would have them duly to consider what is written therein (referring to what is recorded Gen xvi. and xxi.) for, if they would do this, they might soon see how little reason they had to trust in it. And here, 1. He sets before them the history itself (v. 22, 23): For it is written, Abraham had two sons, &c. Here he represents the different state and condition of these two sons of Abraham--that the one, Ishmael, was by a bond-maid, and the other, Isaac, by a free-woman; and that whereas the former was born after the flesh, or by the ordinary course of nature, the other was by promise, when in the course of nature there was no reason to expect that Sarah should have a son. 2. He acquaints them with the meaning and design of this history, or the use which he intended to make of it (v. 24-27): These things, says he, are an allegory, wherein, besides the literal and historical sense of the words, the Spirit of God might design to signify something further to us, and that was, That these two, Agar and Sarah, are the two covenants, or were intended to typify and prefigure the two different dispensations of the covenant. The former, Agar, represents that which was given from mount Sinai, and which gendereth to bondage, which, though it was a dispensation of grace, yet, in comparison of the gospel state, was a dispensation of bondage, and became more so to the Jews, through their mistake of the design of it, and expecting to be justified by the works of it. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia (mount Sinai was then called Agar by the Arabians), and it answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children; that is, it justly represents the present state of the Jews, who, continuing in their infidelity and adhering to that covenant, are still in bondage with their children. But the other, Sarah, was intended to prefigure Jerusalem which is above, or the state of Christians under the new and better dispensation of the covenant, which is free both from the curse of the moral and bondage of the ceremonial law, and is the mother of us all--a state into which all, both Jew and Gentiles, are admitted, upon their believing in Christ. And to this greater freedom and enlargement of the church under the gospel dispensation, which was typified by Sarah the mother of the promised seed, the apostle refers that of the prophet, Isa liv. 1, where it is written Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she who hath a husband. 3. He applies the history thus explained to the present case (v. 28): Now we, brethren, says he, as Isaac was the, are the children of the promise. We Christians, who have accepted Christ, and rely upon him, and for justification and salvation by him alone, as hereby we become the spiritual, though we are not the natural, seed of Abraham, so we are entitled to the promised inheritance and interested in the blessings of it. But lest these Christians should be stumbled at the opposition they might meet with from the Jews, who were so tenacious of their law as to be ready to persecute those who would not submit to it, he tells them that this was no more than what was pointed to in the type; for as them he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, they must expect it would be so now. But, for their comfort in this case, he desires them to consider what the Scripture saith (Gen xxi. 10), Cast out the bond-woman and her son, for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman. Though the judaizers should persecute and hate them, yet the issue would be that Judaism would sink, and wither, and perish; but true Christianity should flourish and last for ever. And then, as a general inference from the whole of the sum of what he had said, he concludes (v. 31), So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond-woman, but of the free."---Matthew Henry, Commentaries on the Whole Bible, vol. VI, pp. 669-670.

Bits and Pieces

Not by Might nor by Power

"There is in our generation a growing idolatry of military glory and conquest. We desire to be the possessors of the vastest empire that has been--one upon which the sun never sets. We ought to beware of this lust of imperialism, for it is not the great militant empires that have contributed most to the world's progress. A small nation may possess, if not the arms that conquer, the ideas and resources that lay the universe under tribute. Such is the lesson of history, and over and over again have aggressive kingdoms been force to repent in sackcloth and ashes.

"It is one thing to admit that there are certain causes for which a Christian may properly unsheath his sword; it is another thing to claim that war in itself is better for a nation than peace, and that we ought to look chiefly to mighty armaments on land and sea as the great instruments for the spread of civilization and Christianity. No nation needs to sacrifice life in war to be truly great. Rather do the ravagings and cruelties of war obliterate the divinity that is the birthright of all mankind.

"The forerunner of Jesus Christ was not Samson, but John the Baptist. The kingdom of God cometh not with observation, with acquisition, nor with subjugation. If all the territory of this great round earth were to-day subject to one conquering emperor, no matter that the cross were blazoned on his banner and on his throne, the kingdom of heaven would not be a whit nearer. 'Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit saith the Lord of Hosts.' That is the message of Christianity. A literature that is Christian must exact love and that loyal obedience that springs therefrom. It must check and reprove the thirst for conquest as well as the confidence of brute force. It must firmly vindicate and commend righteousness, and fair dealing and kindness. The simple proclamation of the truth must be depended upon to bring nigh a better age and teach all the tribes of the earth to dwell together in peace.

"'By the soul only, the nations shall be great and free.'" J. N. Dales, in the Christian Vanguard, from The Centennial of Religious Journalism, pp 229-233.

Principles of Union

"That they all may be one." --Christ's prayer.

"There are first or fundamental principles recognized in all associations, whether civil, political, ecclesiastical, or domestic. There are found in the laws of nature or revelation, or arise from human policy, interest, or expediency. The gospel establishes a new and distinct relation, and creates an association of heavenly origin. The principles upon which this union is based are a matter of revelation, and not of human policy. It is not for Christians to say how, and for what purpose they will unite, for these things are fixed by a higher power. Christians must unite on the principles of Christianity, or they cease to be Christians. For union is the sine qua non [*necessity] of the religion of Christ. Hence if union, or love, is wanting, religion is wanting, or is but an empty name."--Rev. Ira Allen, Christian Palladium, July 1, 1840, in The Centennial of Religious Journalism (1908), pp. 105-106. [*Insertion added. This is the founding basis of all Christian Jural Societies. See also 44 Me. 505 (1859) and 10 Op.Atty.-Gen. 382 (1862).]

The True Notion of the Exercise of Private Judgment,

or Free-Thinking

"If Men study the Scriptures with a sincere Desire to know the Truth, and to practice whatever they find to be their Duty, God would never leave them destitute of Means sufficient for the understanding all Things necessary to Salvation.

"The Scriptures were designed to influence Men's Hearts and Affections; and therefore such moral Qualifications as I have mention'd, are necessary to prepare Men for a right understanding of them. Men never disbelieve the Scriptures, but by those Sins, and unlawful Pleasures, which that Book condemns; these are the great Impediments to the Understanding; remove but these out of the Way, and we shall soon discover the Truth, and find it agreeable to us.

"If we resolve to make the Scriptures the Rule of Life, tho' there may remain, after all our Study, some Things we shall never fully understand, yet we shall not fail of understanding so much as will make us wise unto Salvation.

"But if Men come to read the Scriptures with corrupt Passions, and Aversions to Truth, they will neither be diligent in searching for it, nor be willing to receive it, if they should find it. Those Things which are plain, will be obscure to them, and while they have another Interest on Foot, different from the Truth, either their Eyes will be blinded, or else they will handle the Word of God deceitfully, and pervert the meaning of the Text into the Service of that Cause which they have already espoused.

"Besides, where Men read the Scriptures not to find the meaning of the Holy Spirit, but to raise groundless Objections, God does not only suffer such Persons to be taken in their own Craftiness, but does moreover smite them with a judicial Blindness, and Hardness of Heart." Dr. Ibbot's Lecture, in Boyle's Lectures (1737), Volume III, pp. 32-33.

Is It Duty to Love Christians?

"The life principle of all religion is that divine love and goodness which arises from a pure faith in God and in Jesus the Saviour, if we have formed a proper estimate of the things of God. Whoever seeks to promote peace, unity and love among Christians, seeks to promote godliness and the will of God. Whoever seeks to promote discord, division, and enmity among Christians, seeks to promote the weakness of the church, the desolation of Zion, and a leprosy upon the body of Christ."--Rev. A. G. Comings, in the Christian Palladium, May 8, 1852, in The Centennial of Religious Journalism (1908), p. 137.

Issue the Thirty-second

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Charles Thomas: Anglin...

Who is The Israel of God?...

On the Lips of the Beast...

My Christianal Experience...

Maintaining general delivery, Part Three...

Bits and Pieces...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Charles Thomas: Anglin

Our Brother in Christ Remembered

At this time, it appears that the punishment to Charles Thomas: Anglin by The State of Alabama for Exercising his Christian Liberty on the common Ways was the death penalty by starvation.

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." John 15:13

We will always remember Charles Thomas: Anglin as our Brother and fellow-soldier in the army of Christ Jesus who in his love for Christ's church paid the ultimate price on earth to gain eternal life in Christ:

"He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for My sake shall find it." Matthew 10:39

For refusing to be one with The State of Alabama and one with the world, he was hated by that world, but is now in a better place where no hate exists:

"If the world hate you, ye know that it hated Me before it hated you.
If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." John 15:18-19

How do the officers of their State of Alabama reply to the judgment given by Christ Jesus against all who act contrary to His Ways ministered by those called out and ordained by Him?

"Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee." Matt 11:21-24

How will those officers and officials who have the blood of Charles Thomas: Anglin on their hands for The State of Alabama's sake plead on that day?

"For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for My sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then He shall reward every man according to his works." Matthew 16:25-27

An Open Letter

from our Brother in Christ, Gary Wayne

To Our Brothers in Jesus, the Christ:

We had been fighting the beast for some time (years) when we were led in the direction of the Christian common Law and the Christian Jural Society. Thank you, Lord!

While studying the 'Code," we found the proper way to "scrap" the title and reclaim our automobiles for the Lord. Charles Thomas followed the rules to the letter and went one step beyond and posted public notice at the county seat and other places in the county. On the ninth day of the ninth month in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and ninety-seven the proper departments of government were notified by registered mail and received by them the following day. On the twentieth day of the tenth month the public notices were posted. All went well until the tenth day of the eleventh month of ninety-seven. This was the last day we saw Charles Thomas alive.

He was arrested by alien enemy agent Dennis Blackerby of the Shelby County Sheriff's Office and badly manhandled during the arrest. Charles Thomas wanted to take his Law with him but Officer Blackerby threw The Holy Bible on the ground and hauled the body of Charles Thomas and his Lawful automobile away.

From that day on, we had very little contact from Charles Thomas until the day I was informed of his death on the fourth day of the eighth month in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight. I had received from him one (1) letter while he was in Shelby County Jail (six months), and one (1) letter while he was in the custody of the State of Alabama (three months).

He never signed or acquiesced in any manner. Their unlawful process was abated and proof positive notification of the proper departments of government were in the possession of the COURT and the Prosecutor's Office long before the indictment was issued forth. They held a trial, the jury was picked by the judge and the prosecutor, and Charles Thomas was convicted and sentenced to five years. I moved forward and got his case before the Alabama supreme court in a true common Law pleading for "A Writ of Error." This case was served upon the court on the twenty-fourth day of the sixth month in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight. When I was informed that Charles Thomas had died in custody of the STATE, the Demand went forth to the Attorney General to investigate his death. We shall see..... The battle rages on!

Yours in Christian Love and Our Elder Brother Jesus, the Christ,

Gary Wayne

Demand Letter for Investigation

To: The Office of the Attorney General of Alabama.

Greetings from Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, and Myself.

In a Ministerial capacity, I come forth by Visitation, from our Lawful venue and jurisdiction, to Demand that your Office cause to be Investigated and a full and factual True Report to be issued forth concerning the death of Charles Thomas: Anglin, suae potestate esse, A Good and Lawful Christian Man, who died while under the control and in the custody of THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA, and who at the time of his death had a cause before the supreme court for Alabama, said cause number being 1971654.

These are the issues and matters that are the concern and are in need of answers in this cause:

One. Why was Charles Thomas: Anglin held in solitary confinement from the very first day of his arrest on the tenth day of the eleventh month in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and ninety-seven, denied visitation, consultation and most all contact with the outside world from this time until the time he was removed to Mt. Meigs correctional facilities, some time after the fifteenth day of the fifth month in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight?

Two. Who was the party or parties that ordered this "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" to be practiced upon the body of Charles Thomas: Anglin?

Three. What was the reason for this "Cruel and Unusual" treatment of Charles Thomas: Anglin? As he was not a violent man nor was he charged with a crime of violence.

Four. Why was Charles Thomas: Anglin prosecuted in the face of exonerating evidence that was in the hands of the CIRCUIT COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY and THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OF SHELBY COUNTY months before the INDICTMENT of CHARLES THOMAS ANGLIN? (see Exhibit 'A', notice to the departments of government).

Five. Why was Charles Thomas: Anglin starved and emaciated while in the custody of THE SHELBY COUNTY JAIL? I have a statement from him that says he lost twenty-four pounds, this from a man who only weighed one hundred and thirty-five pounds when he was taken into custody by Alien Enemy Agent DENNIS BLACKERBY, I. D. number 139 of THE SHELBY COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.

Six. Why was Charles Thomas: Anglin placed in disciplinary and solitary confinement at Mt. Meigs when it was learned that he had a case before the supreme court for Alabama. This fact was related to me when he was allowed to phone me, along with the fact that he was brought to the phone in chains and cuffs. When this fact was related to me the phone call was terminated.

Seven. Who ordered this "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" for having a cause before the supreme court?

Eight. Is this standard practice for all who are in custody and have a cause before the supreme court?

Nine. What was the cause of death?

Ten. Was this cause confirmed by autopsy? If so, a copy of the autopsy report shall be included in the report from your office.

Facts in this cause:

One. Charles Thomas: Anglin was not a criminal and had no criminal intent, as was proven by his actions of notification of the proper departments of government and the posting of public notices for all the world to see. His sole intent was to do the will of Our Father and serve Our Lord and Master Jesus, the Christ.

Two. He lived and breathed and had his being under the Law of God, The Christian common Law, and Alabama is a common law state, which is the lex non scripta, the jus publicum and is the Law of the Land in Alabama.

Three. He was not bound to nor did he owe any allegiance to the proven usurped, de facto, martial rule, bankrupt corporate entity which is dead in Law known as THE UNITED STATES, THE STATE OF ALABAMA, THE COUNTY OF SHELBY, or any POLITICAL SUB-DIVISION thereof. His allegiance was to The Kingdom of Jesus, the Christ, and no other.

Four. He was denied the opportunity to testify and present his case and evidence before the GRAND JURY OF SHELBY COUNTY after a Demand to do so was served upon the OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF SHELBY COUNTY, before any INDICTMENT was issued (see Petitioner's Record).

Five. He was a vibrant, apparently healthy, active and very much alive man, doing the work of Our Father until he was thrown into a system bent upon punishing him for being Free in Jesus, the Christ, and living under the proclaimed and adopted Law of the Land in Alabama, that being the Christian common Law.

Six. I, as his appointed Counsel in the state of Christendom in Alabama and having full Power of Attorney for Charles Thomas: Anglin, deceased, want this matter investigated, reported upon, and resolved to the satisfaction of the parties involved, and the Good Name of Charles Thomas: Anglin, deceased, cleansed and restored to remove this contrived felony conviction from his record, and to restore his good name and reputation in the community in which he lived.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Done by the Authority of God Almighty, His Glorious Son Jesus, the Christ, the Holy Spirit, and Charles Thomas: Anglin, deceased, by his appointed Counsel in the state of Christendom in Alabama, a distinct, separate, and superior venue and jurisdiction, on this the eighth day of the eighth month in the year of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight and in the two hundred and twenty-third year of the Independence of America and in The Sabbath Year of Jubilee of The Lord God Almighty.

I have the Honor of being A Good and Lawful Christian Man.

Gary Wayne: Presley

Editor's Note: For those that would like to keep up to date on this matter, or to help Gary Wayne in any way possible, you can contact him by writing to:

Gary Wayne: Presley
general delivery
Childersburg Post Office
Childersburg, Alabama

Who is The Israel of God?

A Sermon by Pastor Warren Mark Campbell

There is a disagreement in the church world, in that, theologically, many today teach that there are three classes of people on the earth. They teach that there are those who are Christian, there are those who are non-Christian (those that have nothing to do with the Gospel of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ), and another group of people that are Jews, or Israelites, based upon a particular type of blood that is coursing through their veins. So to their practice there is the Christian, the non-Christian and the Jew; and that God deals with each one of them in a different fashion.

The church at Kaweah teaches differently--as well as other theologians, I might add. That is, there are only two classes of people, and that there always has been. Either you are a Christian or you are not a Christian. You are either born again of God's Spirit or you are not born again. In simpler terms, we would say that you are either a Christian, or a pagan.

Now, this position frightens some people. Because of the propaganda machine of the twentieth century, most are too scared to make the statement that you are either born again and on your way to Heaven, or you are not and on your way to Hell. There is no "middle ground," so to speak. And it angers others. The message I preach this morning angers some people to become very violent and vehement.

The propaganda machine is so great within the church. I remember in 1991, in a discussion with a Christian friend in Oregon, I mentioned that we needed to cut back on the over-taxation of the people by cutting back on foreign aid, such as the 3 billion dollars of aid that goes to The State of Israel each year. And he got mad--he got livid. He said "the only reason the United States isn't under judgment right now is because of all that we're doing for Israel. How dare you." I was simply saying that we needed to cut back on aid, and he got very angry. Why was he so angry?

Because there is a teaching out there that says that there are three categorizes of people. And if you touch those that claim to be of a particular blood line, God will in some way curse you.

What we will be looking at in this study is: Who is The Israel of God? Is The Israel of God those who have a particular blood line that live in Palestine. Or is it those that live in the Scandinavian/European countries. Or those in America that believe that they have a particular blood line, calling themselves Israelites or Jews, saying they are the true Israelites, and that those in Palestine don't have the right blood.

So there are two main groups that are vying for this third position that the church world has adopted in modern times. And they are continually jockeying for the church world's favor for this third position.

We want to look at how the Old Testament dealt with the Israel of God; who The Israel of God was, and how the New Testament deals with who The Israel of God is--to see if there was a transition. So we're going to look at Old Testament titles and attributes of Israel, which are in the New Testament, referred to the Christian church. Those terms of endearment, those terms of love and compassion that God gave to His people in the Old Testament.

Does He still use those special covenant terms in the New Testament era? Is He still using those terms with the Christian church? Or are they something different and Old Testament Israel retains those special terms of endearment? Or does He still love the New Testament church but they don't get that special classification--they're another breed?

We're going to show that there has been a transference of those terms and those attributes, and that they are now committed to the church --to The Bride of Christ.

The Children of God

So, first were going to take a close look at this topic of "the children of God." How God called His people in the Old Testament, "the children of God"; and that He calls the church today, His children.

So, in the Old Testament, God says at Exodus 4:22-23:

"And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is My son, even My firstborn: And I say unto thee, Let My son go, that he may serve Me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn."

At this time Jacob, or Israel, had long since died. So He is saying that the "nation" Israel is "My son;" "My firstborn;" "My child."

Now in the New Testament, does God refer to the church in the same way? Yes! At John 1:12-13, we see:

"But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

And at First John 3:1 we have:

"Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew Him not."

God's Flock

The new Testament Christian is known as "a son of God," or "a daughter of God."

Another term used in the Old Testament describing Israel is, "God's flock," His sheep that He shows special care over. At Isaiah 40:11 we see:

"He shall feed His flock like a shepherd: He shall gather the lambs with His arm, and carry them in His bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young."

So we see the tender care that God had for Old Testament Israel, as a shepherd watching over His lambs; caring for and helping them along when their too young.

The People of God

And God transfers that beautiful term and sentiment, now, to His people. We see this at John 10:16:

"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear My voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."

God is speaking to Israel here. This is a bringing together into "one." That is why we say here at Kaweah that there are only two classes now--either Christian, or non-Christian; either God's children under Jesus Christ, or pagans; you are either on your way to Heaven or on your way to Hell. There is no in-between or neutral ground here.

So Jesus is letting them know that "I have other sheep and that there will be one fold, and one shepherd." We will show you later how that fold came into being and became "one," with "one" shepherd.

The Kingdom of God

Now, in Old Testament Israel the Kingdom of God was known as "God's Kingdom." At Exodus 19:6 we find:

"And ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel."

Many people look at Old Testament Israel, and this verse, and say, "that was a special Kingdom; very special and very unique. We can't make any application today for this because we're New Testament believers, and that's a totally different thing. But God says in the New Testament at Colossians 1:13 that He "hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son" We're part of the Kingdom, just as Old Testament Israel was part of the Kingdom of God.

Notice the contrasting here of "the people of God" at Second Samuel 7:23:

"And what one nation in the earth is like Thy people, even like Israel, whom God went to redeem for a people to Himself, and to make Him a name, and to do for you great things and terrible, for Thy land, before Thy people, which Thou redeemedst to Thee from Egypt, from the nations and their gods?"

Notice the possession there of "Thy people"--God's people. He is saying "what nation is there like your people, Lord, even like Israel?"

At Jeremiah 11:3-4 we see that those people of, and those covenant promises to Old Testament Israel were conditional:

"And say thou unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel; Cursed be the man that obeyeth not the words of this covenant, Which I commanded your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, Obey My voice, and do them, according to all which I command you: so shall ye be My people, and I will be your God:"

The condition is "Obey My voice." But Old Testament Israel over and over again rejected obedience to God. They rejected it; they turned away; they turned to idols. God lovingly kept bringing them back, and bringing them back. And they kept willfully turning away from walking with God and being His peculiar people unto Him.

Now in the New Testament at Second Corinthians 6:16 God says "...I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people."

That is the transference of the New Testament church. They are now "the people of God."

The Priests of God

Now we will get more specific and more intimate here. Who are 'the priests of The Living God." Old Testament Israel truly were "priests of God." We see this at Exodus 19:5-6:

"Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people: for all the earth is Mine: And ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel."

Notice the important conditions here; "if ye will obey My voice" and if ye "keep My covenant," (only) "then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people"....and "a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation." Old Testament Israel was 'a kingdom of priests" and "a holy nation." They were set apart to God and His service. But is the New Testament Christian the same way? Absolutely!! At First Peter 2:5 we see that:

"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ."

And at Revelations 1:6:

"And (Jesus Christ) hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father; to Him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen."

So you see that the church is the kingdom of God, and we're kings and priests in His kingdom. And we are part of giving Him that glory and dominion that He so richly deserves.

The Children of Abraham

Now, who are the children of Abraham today? Second Chronicles 20:7 says:

"Art not Thou our God, who didst drive out the inhabitants of this land before Thy people Israel, and gavest it to the seed of Abraham Thy friend for ever?"

Notice the important word here, being 'seed' in the singular, not 'seed' plural. This is confirmed at Galatians 3:16:

"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."

We see here the corresponding verses of Second Chronicles and Galatians, and the important distinction that Abraham's is strictly in the singular. So when you hear on Christian television or radio that they're asking for all of this money to sent and spent over in The State of Israel for all of these 'seeds,' remember that the everlasting promise is to a 'seed'; that 'seed' being Christ. Not 'seeds' as in a blood line group of people, but 'seed' as in Christ. All Christians are a part of that Godly seed line today.

How are Christians part of that seed line? By 'f a i t h' in the blood of Jesus Christ and His work on the cross for you. Because Abraham was a man of 'faith' and through his belief and faith it was accounted him for righteousness. God imputed that to him. So, it is through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ today that all Christians become the seed of Abraham. We see this at Galatians 3:6-7:

"Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham."

And fully confirmed at verse 9:

"So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham."

All Christians are the seed of Abraham because we have faith just as Abraham himself had faith, and it pleased God.

Unfortunately, most of the church world today does not see this, even though it is spelled out crystal clear in Scripture.

Further on this point, let us also look and see that even under the old covenant mode, the disobedient Israelites were not the children of Abraham. Speaking at John 8:37-39 to the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus Christ tells us this in the ultimate and truthfully way in which He speaks:

"I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill Me, because My word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with My Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. They answered and said unto Him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham."

Abraham believed God. These Israelites by blood line did not believe Jesus Christ and what He was telling them. So He is saying to them at verse 39 that, "(because you are children of unbelief, you have no part with faithful Abraham)"--"If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham, (but you're not)"--"(and I see this because you do not believe God)."

And further at verses 40-42:

"But now ye seek to kill Me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to Him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love Me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of Myself, but He sent me."

And at verse 44 and 45:

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe Me not."

So we see Christ telling those that were under the old covenant "who believed Him not" how they would be destroyed by Him by not calling them His own anymore--because of their unbelief and faithlessness.

People who now claim to be Israelites or Jews--if they are not believers in Christ Jesus--are of their father the devil. That is why we say that there are only the two categories of people; either Christian or non-Christian; either saved or unsaved.

So, we have many people of the so-called 'two blood lines' that claim, "I'm Israel," but if they are not believers in Christ Jesus then they are of their father the devil.

They're not of faithful Abraham --believing in Jesus Christ and His work in their lives.

The Chosen People

Now, who are 'the chosen people." This is a very special and endearing term of Old Testament Israel. They were called 'God's chosen people." We see this at Deuteronomy 7:6:

"For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto Himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth."

So we see here a special 'chosen' people. But at Jeremiah 6:30 and many other verses, the time came when God describes Israel in another light:

"Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the LORD hath rejected them."

Israel, that shining silver, had become tarnished. It had to be put in a pot and melted down; it's reprobate; it became unusable silver. It was no longer lawful for the kingdom's use. The Lord had rejected them.

Now in the New Testament, Christians are known as God's chosen, God's elect. At Colossians 3:12 we see:

"Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;"

Christians are 'the elect of God,' 'elect meaning 'chosen.' And again at First Peter 2:9:

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvellous light:"

So we must ask the question: "According to The Bible, who are the chosen people today?" Shamefully, if the majority of the people within the church world were asked that question, they would answer it wrong. They should know that if they are born of the Spirit; if they are blessed with faithful Abraham, then they are 'the chosen of God.'

We also see the transference from Old Testament Israel to today's Christian of many other terms, such as: Beloved of God --Field of God--House of God--Vineyard of God--Wife or Bride of God--The circumcised--Jews--Olive tree. These are all excellent Bible study terms which we do not have time to cover here.

We see the early backsliding and transgressions, and the resulting transference at Jeremiah 3:8-17:

"And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.
And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks.
And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the LORD.
And the LORD said unto me, The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah.
Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep anger for ever.
Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the LORD thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice, saith the LORD.
Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:
And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.
And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the LORD, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the LORD: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more."

(And the transference):

"At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart."

And at Romans 2:28 we see who a Jew is:

"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

The Cord is Cut

Where do we find the ability to say that one is either born again or nor born again; saved or unsaved. Where was the cord cut, and how was it cut?

At Matthew 21:34 it is written:

"And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.
And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.
Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.
But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. [The husbandmen being the Pharisees, the son being Jesus Christ].
But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.
And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.
When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, [the cord is cut] and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard His parables, they perceived that he spake of them.
But when they sought to lay hands on Him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet."

So the cord is clearly cut. And at Matthew 23:32 we see the most scathing reprimand ever preached and the finality of the cut:

"Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
Behold, your house is left unto you desolate."

The house (the temple) "is left unto you." It was God's house, but they had changed that, seen earlier at Matthew 21:13:

"And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves."

God here no longer makes claim to that house. He is saying that, "it is no longer My house. I can no longer make that claim." This is a cleansing of the temple. He had cleansed it at the beginning of His ministry, and again He cleanses it at the end of His ministry.

And of course the temple was destroyed by Titus' siege in 67-70 A.D. and will never be allowed by God to be rebuilt again, because it would be a blasphemous act and because of their rejection of The True Messiah.

Those that propose to rebuild the temple by soliciting money for that purpose show a flat out rejection of the finished work of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, rejecting the king of Kings and the lord of Lords. Why get involved with a temple that is no longer His temple.

Of Twain, One New Man

At John 11:47-52, we see the twain, verse 52 being the main:

"And not for that nation only, but that also He should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad."

And at First Corinthians 10:1-4, Paul is speaking to his brethren, who are predominately Gentiles:

"Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
"And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."

The important words here are "our fathers." He is calling these Gentiles his brethren, and saying that Moses, Joshua, Caleb and all of the great men and women of the faith are "our fathers." If you are born again in Christ through faith, Moses and all of the prophets are "our fathers," because "they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed: and that Rock was Christ." Contrary to so much disinformation, the fathers are not exclusive to those in Palestine or any other blood line.

And finally, at Ephesians 2:11-22 Paul is again talking to the Gentiles, verses 13 and 14 completing the twain and the one new man:

"But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
For He is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit."

All believers 'builded together' are the habitation of God though His Spirit.

In closing, a word must be said about the different groups who look to their flesh (their blood line or skin color) for justification of being 'the chosen people.' These are the British Israelites of the early twentieth century, sometimes called Identity, now changing that to Christian Israel to make it more palatable.

How do these groups come about? Because it appeals to one's pride to be special. That is how cults are built. What separates a cult from all others? Because they believe they are unique above all others. They say, "we're special." That is very appealing to the base nature of the natural man "who receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God." It is very easy, because it is not based upon faith in Christ's shed blood, but upon "human pride and reason."

"But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God." Galatians 6:14-16

Warren Mark Campbell is the associate pastor at the church at Kaweah in California. For a taped copy of this sermon or further information, call 209-561-0802.

On the Lips of the Beast

by Paul Erhard

The following is reprinted from Issue the Ninth of 'Hear Ye! Hear Ye!,' the Christian Jural Society Newsletter published by The First House of Delegates, Waukesha county, Wisconsin.

This is the story of my recent bout into the court of the beast. On the first day of the last month in 1997, after praying the 91st Psalm and asking for protection during the day with my wife, I left the house and was libertying on my way to do a job. This job arrangement I have had for a few years, and had been leaving at the same time during the normal beast system work week. It was about six in the morning; there was a car tailgating me for about a block. I stopped at a stop sign. That car turned with me, not bothering to stop. About a block later I noticed red and blue decorative lights two cars behind me. I pulled over, off the road as far as possible to let them pass. Not catching on to what was really happening yet, I jumped out of the van I was in to check the tail light that has given me problems in the past; then I realized those lights were for me. Not one car or two cars, but perhaps four or five squad cars now surrounded me.

I started praying and turned to get get back in the van where my Holy Bible was, but one of the cops demanded I "not get back in the van." An arm grabbed me and pulled me behind the van I was using. A detective asked me for my driver's license. I told them I didn't use one of those; that my Heavenly Father didn't require me to have one. He immediately asked if I was PAUL GLANDER (by the tone of his voice I could tell he was speaking in all caps!!). I said, "that's not me." They wanted some identification. I didn't give them any ... I didn't have any.

One of them showed me the abatements I did, and said "if the punctuation was correct with upper and lower letters, would that be you? ... don't lie to me now; we'll get you for obstruction if you lie to us." I hesitated for a moment, thinking that I didn't have my Bible with me; I felt naked. The detective asked again. I said, "well, yeah." He said, " you are under arrest for driving after revocation. Who does this van belong to?"

I thought to myself, "now I blew it, I shammed my abatements." I said, "I'm not saying anything." He said, "Oh, is it stolen?"

I was handcuffed and put into the back of a squad car for one of the scariest rides of my life. The cop-driver seemed to have a nervous twitch in his foot...either up or down -- no in between -- and he always had to be within three feet of the car in front of us, going 65 mph.

Some Background Information...

This all seemed to begin with an accident that I had during a blizzard in the last month of 1995 when I hit a rut in the snow, pushing the car I was in across the center line. Trying to get back to the right, an oncoming car appeared too soon and I hit his left fender. At this time I was into Right Way l.a.w., had a Kingdom of Heaven driver's license, and of course, no insurance.

After explaining everything to the other guy, a cop showed up, and was not so understanding. I was arrested for driving after revocation and put in the back of their squad car. (About a year earlier I had revoked, rescinded, and canceled my own State driver's license).

I had been praying since my trip of the center line for deliverance. After further questions in the back of the squad car, the cop said this was "your lucky day; there was another accident to go to" and he couldn't take me in right now, and would send the citations in the mail (they took my Embassy of Heaven license). My prayers were answered. When the citations came in the mail to 'my address,' I "Refused them for Cause ...... U.C.C. 1-205" (unopened) or something like that; whatever Right Way was recommending at the time.

Early the next year we were able to locate Randy Lee and stated receiving Christian Jural Society information. We stated a local Christian Jural Society, went to general delivery, and removed the mailbox and numbers from the house.

About a year passed since my accident, before a capias was issued for me to pay a fine of 140.00, which I abated. Then about last October, sheriff's deputies started knocking on the door, "just wanting to talk to me." I did another abatement, but as in the past, only serving by registered mail and not with personal service.

Back to the Drama...

After arriving at the Sheriff's Department, I was questioned by two detectives for nearly an hour. They told me that the reason for such a show of force is because of the abatements I had been serving on the sheriff. The sheriff, they said, had been receiving many abatements, most of them threatening to sue under Title 42. He was concerned about being sued, and not sure what it was that I wanted, and just wanted to talk to me. I explained that we usually include the sheriff in our abatements, just to keep him informed as to what was happening in his county, and that we just wanted to live according to the Laws of God Almighty, and that their process was defective and all they needed to do was to correct it. They wanted to know if these abatements were all prepared by the same person. I said that very Good and Lawful Christian should do their own, and that we have a book with examples, but that we must do our own... (There is a "patriot" in our area, however, who was asked to leave our local Christian Jural Society, who does do abatements for anyone, including non-Christians; but it is step three of his paperwork, following a Bill of Particulars and some other patriot stuff. This guy also laughs at our plans to use on the Law of God Almighty as laid out in The Holy Bible if we are forced into their court, telling all who will listen that he has never seen the Bible work in court).

The detectives also asked why we serve copies, and not originals. Originals would cause then to take our process more seriously, they said. They say their whole system runs on originals. I said that I never really thought that it mattered (especially since we know their sheriff has accepted warrants that have nothing more than a judge's stamp, and that's certainly note an original signature!!). They told me that the reason they stopped me was because they "suspected" I was driving after revocation. I decided to not answer any more of their questions, which they said they understood.

My next stop was booking. I refused to give a name, finger prints, or date of birth, but one of the detectives told the jailer who they thought I was and "admitted to at the scene. The jailer had me remove my warm clothes and put on some smelly, dirty red jail clothes (I will never willingly do that again!). For the next thirty-five hours I was cold and very uncomfortable. I was put in a holding cell until early afternoon and then taken to a one-man cell in the regular part of the jail. They did not give me a blanket or sheets, but by the Grace of Our Father, they put me in a cell from which someone had just been released and had not used his sheets or blanket, so I could get as warm as I could get on a metal and concrete bed.

I refused all meals and decided to fast as long as I could, which this act received a threat of psychological testing.

At about three in the afternoon I was taken out of the cell and placed in a larger cell with about twelve other men. Names were called and a trip to a judge followed. When PAUL GLANDER was called, I didn't respond. When I was the only one left, I was asked what my name was saying "I didn't have one." At that point I was called "uncooperative" and returned to the cell.

The rest of the day and all night I had to listen to the most foul language I had heard since I left the Navy, coming from nearby cells. There was a deaf and dumb Cuban directly across me who kept throwing wads of toilet paper into the cell I was in. He must have run out of toilet paper, because he then threw a Bible in. Praise the Lord; I could read the Law again, although it was only the New Testament with Psalms and Proverbs.

The next day, shortly after noon, I got a visitor. When I got to the visitor's booth, I was so happy, that tears ran down my face... there before me was a member of our Christian Jural Society, who also happens to be a pastor. I learned later from my wife that she had tried to get in to see me, but the jailers wouldn't allow anyone in but an attorney. She told them I would never speak to such a person... how about a pastor? They agreed, and got our brother in Christ to come as soon as she learned I had been kidnapped.

After talking about many things with him, I decided, based upon others that have shammed their abatements, that I should get this whole thing behind me and start re-establishing my Christian character again.

The thing that I had not been doing, was, witnessing for Jesus the Christ in everything I said.

About an hour later I was called before a judge. The judge asked if I was PAUL GLANDER, and I said "yes." He asked for my date of birth; I said I didn't know what it was, that I was not conscious at the time. He started getting very angry and ashed, "didn't anyone ever tell you?" I said, "it was only hearsay, but the date you are probably looking for was.....," and gave him the date. He asked me what my address was and I told him that I got my mail at general delivery. He asked if I was employed. I said "no." He then said that I was being charged with driving after revocation, and, "how do you plead?" I said "guilty." The judge set a date for a hearing and bail at 250.00. The prosecutor said that I should be released only if I submit to the booking precess. The judge agreed and called the next case.

I was given some papers, one of them being a "PRE-TRIAL OFFER" that said that if the defendant get's a driver's license , the State would amend the charge to "Operating Without a License, 1st Offense" and recommend a 50.00 fine plus costs. I guess that was what they were prepared to do, but I rolled over for them. An hour later I was in booking again, had my picture and finger prints taken, and writing samples given. (I now know why five days earlier I got my right index finger caught between an angle iron stake and a sledge hammer!). I couldn't write better than a chicken scratching on paper. Other information they wanted was bank account numbers, credit card numbers, phone numbers, and social security numbers...all of which I had none. They also wanted to know if I rented owned a home.

Meanwhile, the pastor had posted bail and paid my first fine. While he was paying the cashier, she asked if the bail was being paid by the pastor or my wife; she was visibly disappointed to learn it was the pastor paying. Before six, the evening after the sixth day of unlawful imprisonment, I was out and in the arms of my wife.

It felt good to get out, but I realized I had done what Peter did. I had denied Jesus, the Christ. I also made the front page of the local paper.

A few days later I called John Joseph to tell him that I also pled guilty. He said there was definitely nothing I could do now but to go in and take whatever they give me.

My wife and I were miserable all weekend. I didn't want to go in and roll over again. I'd be pounding more nails into Our Lord.

I made another call to California, this time reaching Randy Lee, who had been talking to John Joseph about my situation. I told him that I didn't want to go in and play their game without my Christian character again. He said the words I needed to hear...he helped me understand that I didn't lose my Christian character, even with all the errors I made. I surely did need to repent, but all was not lost. Our Father is full of mercy and forgiving (so different from man's government!). I'm still the Christian man I was before this encounter (but hopefully much wiser and stronger). With that and Jeremiah 1:17: "Be not dismayed at their faces, lest I confound thee before them," I decided to go into court, in my Christian character, with my Bible,...and without my glasses!!

Prayer... Bible reading... prayer... and more prayer consumed my time before going to speak to the beast representatives. The court date arrived. When the judge called PAUL E GLANDER, I walked up and this is what happened:

Paul Erhard: I am here by special visitation to exercise ministerial powers granted me by Jesus the Christ, the Messiah.

Judge Roger P. Murphy interrupted: Sir, you are charged with Wisconsin statutes for violating the laws of the State of Wisconsin. Those are not found in the Word in the Bible. This statement says you apparently did operate a motor vehicle after revocation before reinstatement. You have had one prior conviction before reinstatement. Therefore, upon conviction of this offense on Dec. 1, 1997, in the town of Merton, Waukesha county, you would be subject to a 1000.00 fine and prison of 6 months and revocation of up to 6 months. Do you wish to enter a plea? Apparently there has been no plea entered by you to this charge. [Wow, my wife and I prayed that they be confounded. Pleading guilty was a big mistake. Another prayer answered]. You were transferred to this court for that purpose. Wait, you were released on a cash bail bond of 250.00 which was filed. Do you wish to have the matter set down for trial?

Paul Erhard: First of all, I am not PAUL E. GLANDER. I do not have a name. My Christian appellation id Paul...spelled out Paul Erhard Glander in upper and lower case letters.

Judge interrupted: on your complaint entered from your driver's license record as being PAUL E. GLANDER of Merton Ave., Hartland, Wisconsin, and that is the title of this case. The court wishes to advise you that although I do believe in the Bible, I don't believe it has anything to do with whether you are driving a motor vehicle after revocation or not. The violation of Wisconsin statutes is binding to everyone, especially those who drive motor vehicles on the highways of this State. I will set this matter down for a six-person jury. At this time I do highly recommend Mr. Glander, that you take the time to discuss your case with an attorney who may be able to advise you of your legal rights. Do you wish to have a jury trial for six persons or trial by the court?

Paul Erhard: I can only serve one master, and that is the God of the Bible.

Judge interrupted again: this matter will be set down for a 6 per jury trial before this court and you must appear at that time. I highly recommend that you discuss your case with an attorney who will represent you during the trial. I don't believe the Holy Law of the Bible is going to help convince the jury whether you are guilty or not guilty. It is how well you are represented in trial which will decide your case. You must appear on the status hearing date or the case will be taken off of the jury trial calendar and default judgment will be entered at that time. That is all...(and he immediately announced the next case).

In hind sight, I should have interrupted the judge and told him that this has everything to do with the Bible and that this case was already res judicata because of the unanswered abatement in the past. I should have said many more things...but that's all hind sight. Before I went in, I was sweating bullets, but when I started walking toward the judge and speaking, I felt the presence of Jesus, the Christ right next to me, protecting me. My heart was beating normal and my wife says that I spoke very clearly, boldly, and with conviction, but not belligerently.

It has now been more than two months since I abated their papers with the new court dates, serving the Lawful process on fourteen defendants, including two judges, the prosecutor, detectives, deputies, the sheriff, and the State Senator heading the judicial committee.

If I am picked up again and forced into their court again, I can't fear them; they are not the God of The Holy Bible...Who only I will fear!!

My Christianal (not 'person'al) Experience

by Kimberly Ann

Editor's Note: The following 'positive' confrontation with a minister of the beast is presented in a somewhat edited form due to its length. All 'notes' and 'comments' in brackets [ ] are Kimberly Ann's.

In my decision to remove myself from the beast with the two lamblike horns who speak as a dragon, I had 'foreign' Christendom 'licence plates' made for my hatchback. When the photos were retrieved, I took the DMV's plates back to the issuer, and 'junked the title.'

On this very hot day, while on my way to the county clerk to enroll the information, I stopped at my friends dwelling-house for something cool to drink. A young San Jose police officer pounded on the door until I opened it up to him. It was 105 degrees outside, feeling more like 120.

This was my first attempt at witnessing to a minister of the beast. In reading the following, please understand there were many mistakes made, on both sides. It was well over a two hour conversation and there were some "Ah ha, I caught you-'s" on both sides. I ask only that you take what was good and improve upon the responses.

Officer: Is this your car?

Me: No, but it's in my care. [Note: shaking from thyrotoxicosis and not remembering Luke 12:11-12, and 58].

Officer: I'm going to have it towed. I've never seen anything like it. Show me the 'registration.' What is Chr.. Chris... Christendom, anyway. I'm towing it... [Note: The panic on my face when he said 'towing' must have been obvious. The officer saw my face, and said:] So, it is yours. What is this. [pointing to the plates].

Me: Foreign jurisdiction plates.

Officer: Those are illegal. What you are doing is a felony. [Note: The 'felony' only applies when you are doing it to injure or defraud someone, for example, changing the plates after hitting someone, or avoiding identification after robbing a bank]. Where do you live? [Note: From the VIN number, he went to his computer system, looking up the information. I saw on his computer screen the previous information on the car and myself, still on the record, with the word JUNKED at the bottom, which he did not see. Pointing to the computer screen to a nom de guerre, he asked:] Is this you?

Me: No.

Officer: [more forcefully] Is this you?

Me: My name is not spelled that way, therefore it is not mine.

Officer: I see you work at general delivery and used your work address. I don't suppose you have a driver's license...

Me: No.

Officer: So the handicapped placard is a fake too? How did you get it?

Me: It's not a fake. I bought it from the DMV. I'm disabled, and have been for years.

Officer: How did you get it? I want to see it.

Me: Sure. I got it via a doctor's note, and he filled out a paper from the DMV which I took to them, paid a fee, and received the placard.

Officer: You need a driver's license to be issued a placard.

Me: Well, it has been a long time since my first placard...years. I must have had a driver's license then. It has since been thrown out.

Officer: Now we're getting somewhere. Maybe it is still in force. I want to show you how serious your crimes are here. [Note: He opened his flip chart of common vehicle code numbers that had brief descriptions of: 12500(a), driver's license; 4462.5, presenting or displaying false evidence of registration to avoid registration fee (registration was paid before 'junking' it); 4463 (a)(1), changing plates with intent to defraud, damage, etc.]. We've got felonies here. That is serious. These plates are the same colors as DMV issued California plates. [Note: As we read the 'codes' together, I saw the words of 'art': 'owner' (460), 'driver' (305), 'resident' (516), 'person/natural person' (470), and commented that I was "not one of those" as we came to each of those words]. You are trying to play a semantics game. Don't try to confuse me. I don't want to get confused.

Me: In the larger code book, it says that only persons [Note: Paul in First Corinthians 2:14 tells us about natural persons] who are engaged in commercial activity are drivers who need to have 'license and registration.' I think it is 464/465, 260. Your own code book is in harmony with the True Law. Besides, the DMV would refuse to give me a license, because I hold the foreign, Biblical Right of the Christian by-ways contained in Philippians 4:13. Additionally, Black's Law Dictionary describes persons, and I do not fit any of the definitions.

Officer: What is Black's Law Dictionary? It's probably old, and doesn't apply.

Me: The Decalogue is older, and it still applies!!

Officer: (Opening to his abridged codes, he looked up 'resident.' When he got to the part on 'rebuttable presumption,' I said it out loud with him). You know this?

Me: Yes. I am rebutting your presumption of residency by being in general delivery.

Officer: If it's not your place of employment, why is there no P. O. Box?

Me: General delivery is a Christian Right, and allows us to be the sojourners Christ intends for us to be. If you receive the benefits of free delivery of your mail to a P. O. Box or address, you're relying on the beast to take care of you, thereby losing your transient status and denying Our Lord.

Officer: Do you pay 32 cents for a stamp?

Me: Yes. But you're only required to pay 2 cents per half ounce. I've had friends receive mail at that price, but the post office takes their time to deliver it.

Officer: (Looking at the Christendom plates, he said:) What church made it exempt?

Me: The whole Body of Believers in Jesus the Christ are His church, where two or more are gathered in His Name.

Officer: (Looking at the hatchback, he said:) You're breaking the law. You are committing serious crimes, felonies. I could arrest you and tow your car. (Looking at me, he said:) Even the Bible says we are to render unto Caesar.

Me: Yes, we are to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's; and to God what is God's. We were bought with a price; the blood of His Son on Calvary's cross. Would you allow the torture-death of your child to save the world? The earth and the fullness thereof is the Lord's.

Officer: (Looking at the hatchback, he said:) Wow! You peeled off your stickers [corporate brand names and logos].

Me: Yes, they are indicators of commercial activity. I cannot serve two masters. Caesar is diametrically opposed to Christ.

Officer: Maybe you should just get a horse [we both chuckled]. My decision is, not to arrest you or tow you, for the time being. I understand what you are doing, but it is illegal. If you want to look up the code violations, I'll write them down for you.

Me: Sure. I like to learn.

Officer: You are to remove these plates today. By two working days from today, you are to have your old plates returned to their place on the car. You are to get a driver's license. I will check here in two days, in one week, and in two weeks. [Holding out his right hand offering to shake it, he said:] My name is Kevin.

Me: [Shaking hands] Kim.

Comment: This was close, but not exactly what was said. The phrases would have been choppy, and other sentences would not have made sense if they were exact. I was amazed at the sheer (shear) power of Our Heavenly Father's Holy Spirit -- cutting through the anger that was trying to terrorize me -- to a gentle young man, confused as to whether his laws were just. I ask all of you to pray for Officer Kevin -- that the scales fall from his eyes, as he reads and observes the scenes before him -- before the eminent King of king's imminent advent. Pray for him and my eighteen year old nephew, Garrett William, who has recently asked me things like "What does 'repent' mean?" - "Who was Jesus?" - and so on. Pray that he also may see. Pray with me for their protection.

Maintaining general delivery

The battle to maintain general delivery rages on. This battle, as all battles waged against Christendom, is a wrestling match "against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Ephesians 6:12.

That is why, in this Holy War, you must "put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." Ephesians 6:11.

To many Christians, the above attitude concerning general delivery would seem to be greatly exaggerated. But, as we will document in detail in future Issues of the News, being in general delivery is being in a type of "asylum state" and is one of the most important things a Christian can do in their continuing repenting effort to avoid the modern commercial world and its artificial creations.

This month, we will examine the letter below, which is the return response to the opposition letter from Issue the Thirtieth. Again the text of this letter, and the response to it which follows, are word-for-word. Only the names and locations have been changed for discretionary purposes.

First, you will note that the earlier response letter, requesting the Postmaster to intervene on the Patron's behalf, was successful, and has activated a response from the Postmaster himself. On its face, that would seem to be encouraging. But, when analyzing a letter of this kind in order to respond to it properly, you must first divide the Postmaster's statements into two categories. One, the statements of substance; and two, the artificial statements.

United States Postal Service
July 31, 1998

Mr. John Robert Murdock
General Delivery
56 Main St.
Benecia, Pa 18504-9998

Dear Mr. Murdock:

Subsequent to receiving your letter regarding General Delivery Service at the Benecia office a second review of applicable regulations was made by my staff.

Within the scope of the regulations there are several sketchy aspects to the General Delivery service guidelines that may allow you to receive general delivery service for a period longer than 30 days. Our Delivery Services staff at Postal Headquarters concurs that the regulations are sketchy and will take the necessary steps to clarify them. That being said, you need to provide Mr. Finnegan with a written verification from a suitable point of contact that allows us to validate your claim of being "transient and homeless." This verification may come from a place of employment, shelter, charitable organization, or social service agency. This documentation must be provided by August 31, 1998.

Upon receipt of the documentation a decision will be made as to your ability to receive General Delivery beyond 30 days. We will continue to provide your General Delivery service until that decision is made. Please be cognizant of your responsibility to provide appropriate identification (See Item 2 in the 9/28/94 Postal Bulletin you provided) when calling for your mail.

I shall await Mr. Finnegan's report on the documentation you provide.

Sincerely,
Matthew Johnson

Matthew Johnson
Postmaster, Philadelphia

The effort by the Postmaster to continue to prop up the ruse that the Patron only has access to "General Delivery Service" is always to be expected. In effect, this letter is a non-response to the issues of truth raised in the first letter. Those that commercially minister for the beast always prefer to avoid dealing with points that will determine where the Truth is found, and therefore, are left with no other avenue than to engage in profane and vain babblings.

Note that, even though it was requested previously to not attach the commercial designation of "Mr." to the Patrons Christian Appellation, the Postmaster continues its use.

The reference that "there are several sketchy aspects to the...guidelines" is an obvious avoidance of determining the truth, and an avoidance of the real issues. These tactics, when conversing with all corporate critters, is always to be expected.

To avoid being "swallowed up and spit out" by these attempted derailments, you must always "stick to your guns"; that is, always stay focused on the original issues and the continual mandated effort of "rightly dividing the word of truth."

Note that the Postmaster's main effort is to acquire from the Patron the worldly indicators needed to slam the door shut on access to general delivery. Those indicators are those governmental benefits that "may come from a place of employment, shelter, charitable organization, or social service agency," and "appropriate identification." Once those commercial indicators are provided by you, then "the decision" is made, and the door is closed to you.

Always keep in mind that there is no obligation on your part "to validate" anything. The burden to find evidence to the contrary concerning your status is on he who is attempting to deny. In other words, the person attempting to affirm your non-Christian status has the burden. That is the purpose of his request for "verification" -- to avoid the burden and to receive the evidence voluntarily given by you.

As was stated above, to avoid this voluntary conviction on your part, you must "hold fast that which is good," and continue in the consistency of your previous stance. Never give an affirmative response to the artificial requests of the natural man, for to do so is to partake of, and join with, the unclean thing.

The response letter that I've composed below is a simple example of the type of steadfastness spoken of above.

The Inherited Right in general delivery (not General Delivery Service) belongs to the church. This dominion must always be brought to the fore when speaking to those who are managing the commercial side of The Post Office Department. Failing to do this will surely result in total failure to maintain general delivery.

From:
John Robert: Murdock
to be called for in general delivery
Benecia, Pennsylvania

On the twelfth day of the eighth month
in the Nineteen hundred ninety-eighth year
of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ

To:
Postmaster Mike Powers
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Greetings in the Name of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ.

This writing is in response to having called First-Class mail Matter forth in general delivery from you marked July 31, 1998 in which you refer to my previous writing to you. I thank you for interceding in this matter on my behalf as Postmaster of the Boston area under the Postmaster General in his capacity under the Post Office Department.

You state in your writing that "there are several sketchy aspects to General Delivery service guidelines" and that "Postal Headquarters concurs that the regulations are sketchy and will take the necessary steps to clarify them." To that, I can only say that those learned men and women in the law who write your DMM today, and those in the past, are and always have been very precise in what they write in order to protect and preserve those vested and Inherited Rights of the church in general delivery. They have been very careful by way of the creation of the commercial 'General Delivery Service' not to violate those Rights of the church for all Good and Lawful Christians to call their First-Class mail Matter forth from the non-commercial venue of general delivery under The Post Office Department. Again, history and the nonexistence of legislation touching those vested and Inherited Rights in general delivery clearly shows this.

Having stated these truths, I will again say to you that I have never received or seek to receive 'General Delivery Service.' I have always exercised my traditionally vested and Inherited Right in general delivery wherever I happen to sojourn. These traditionally vested and Inherited Rights in general delivery established for the church, in and through Christ Jesus, existed prior to the creation of The Postal Service and The Post Office Department. Again, the question arises: can the created deny or disparage the creator? Those that write your DMM are very careful not to. Even under the international law of belligerent occupation, during time of war vested and Inherited Rights are not violated by the occupier, but protected and preserved. These laws follow the maxim of Law:

I hope and pray that you will take into consideration these political questions, as they do.

I am transient, homeless and a Christian sojourner on the land. This is not a claim. This is a fact. Since I do not have a 'place of employment,' or look to any shelters, charitable organizations, or social service agencies for my subsistence, but only to the Providence of God and His Gifts and Blessings that flow from that, it would be impossible for me to provide any of the 'verifications' you have requested. Please note the maxim of Law:

"Impossibilium nulla obligatio est -- There is no obligation to do impossible things."

As a side note, I want to make it clear to you that I do not look to any Postal Service publications or rules such as the 9/29/94 Postal Bulletin for my Right in general delivery. I pointed this bulletin out to you simply to display to you that those that write your guidelines recognize the protections that must be left in place according to Law, beyond the reach of The Post Office Department and The Postal Service.

Again, I will point out to you that since I am a Good and Lawful Christian and ministerial officer of Christ, I do not attach, or allow to be attached, commercial designations such as Mister or Mr. to my Christian Appellation, for to do so is an abomination unto my Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, for Whom I minister, and Whom I am a bondservant of.

Again, with having no other way of accessing my First-Class mail Matter except in general delivery, I hope and pray that you will, after taking all of the above into consideration, reconsider any proposed decision to deny my vested and Inherited Right in general delivery, in order that I can continue to fellowship with the Body of Believers and live under The Law of Peace.

In closing, I would like to make it clear to you that it is not my intention to be difficult with you, or to be a burden to The Post Office Department, but a supportive patron in all ways. I would be pleased to discuss these matters with you at your convenience if you find it to be necessary.

May Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ continue to Richly Bless you,

John Robert: Murdock

There are two main artifices that the response letter seeks to rebut.

First, taking the Postmaster's reference to "sketchy aspects," and seeing the obvious ruse on his part, we respond with an emphatic rejection of such nonsense, turn it around on him by pointing out the precision of construction of such commercial rules, and at the same time pressing the Inherited Rights of the church.

Second, his reference of "to validate your claim" is thoroughly rebutted by maintaining your Christian character through dependence on God's Providence only, thereby showing the "impossibility" of his "request," and finalizing the matter with a Maxim of Law.

Additionally, throughout this entire letter, note the repeated reaffirmations of many points made in the first response. This is "sticking to your guns."

At this time, I don't know if this response letter has been successful or not. It will depend on the Postmaster's discernment of the issues, his willingness to recognize the substance, and most importantly how The Holy Spirit moves his heart. As always in the end, in all things, we are completely dependant on the Spirit of God for the moving of these ministers of the beast away from their state of depravity.

From Robert Joseph concerning his letter in last month's Issue submitted to his Postmaster, he writes:

Here's what has happened in a nutshell:

a) On the twenty-first day of the seventh month I sent the letter as it was.
b) Nine days latter I took a witness with me for backup to check the post office, and was handed a postcard that I had sent to myself, with no response from the postmaster.
c) On the thirteenth day of the eighth month I again took a witness with me and picked up First-Class mail Matter posted to myself; no problem.
d) Calling two weeks later, without a witness, the counter clerk was more than friendly. He saw me coming and went to check general delivery without me asking. He came back to the window and addressed me by my first appellation (Joseph)!! This was a first. No problems.
e) On this, the first day of the ninth month, again, he addressed me by my first appellation and was very friendly; no problems. Praise the Lord, and thank you very much for your help. Joseph Robert

Why a letter?

Since there is a 'Postmaster Abatement' available to use in these situations, some readers have questioned the use of letters, as opposed to abatement.

Under the Law of War, resolving a conflict is accomplished three different ways: One, by negotiation; Two, by reprisal; and Three, by war. As opposed to most governmental departments other than in a courtroom, it is possible for negotiation with The Postmaster, because he or she still has a ministerial (non-discretionary) side to their office, if they are moved to that side. That is the aim of the letter writing, as opposed to the abatement process which creates a more hostile atmosphere.

The Importance of general delivery

It has long been held that "federal jurisdiction ends at the post office." We will be documenting the mountain of information on this fact in future Issues of The News.

The purpose of mentioning the above quote, in the meantime, is to convey to the reader the extreme importance for all Christians to be in general delivery.

The countless ways in which federal jurisdiction is extended beyond the post office revolves completely around the use of the governmental benefits known as "free mail delivery" and "interstate commerce."

All governmental regimes since Lincoln's War have used a created device of their police power (public policy) known as "nullification by indirection" to further extend their jurisdiction in order to do an "end run" around the prohibitions in their constitutions. This "indirect way of nullifying constitutional protections" is used quite effectively by the provisional governments. These tactics, of course, have been supported and defended by all of their courts.

This is a fact of modern law in America that we all must learn and understand.

LEX ET CONSUETUDO REGNI

"The law and custom of the realm. One of the names of the common law. Hale, Com.Law, 52.

"It was bad pleading to apply the term to law made by a statute. Pollock, First Book of Juris. 250." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 1055. [Statutes are not pleadable in actions at Law.]

"And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's." Luke 20:25

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24

LIBERA LEX

"In old English law. Free law; frank law; the law of the land.

"The law enjoyed by free and lawful men, as distinguished from such men as have lost the benefit and protection of the law in consequence of crime. Hence this term denoted the status of a man who stood guiltless before the law, and was free, in the sense of being entitled to its full protection and benefit. Amittere liberam legem (to lose one's free law) was to fall from that status by crime or infamy. See Co.Litt. 94b." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 1063.

"But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

"For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." 1 Corinthians 2:15-16

LIBERTAS ECCLESIASTICA

Church liberty, or ecclesiastical immunity." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 1063.

"For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

"But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

"Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

"For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

"But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

"For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.

"Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

"But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

"Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

"So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Galatians 4:22-5:1.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on Jeremiah 6:16

Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. Jeremiah 6:16

1. By way of advice concerning their duty, v. 16. God had been used to say to them, Stand in the ways and see. That is,

(1.) He would have them to consider, not to proceed rashly, but to do as travellers in the road, who are in care to find the right way which will bring them to their journey's end, and therefore pause and enquire for it. If they have any reason to think that they have missed their way, they are not easy till they have obtained satisfaction. O that men would be thus wise for their souls, and would ponder the path of their feet, as those that believe lawful and unlawful are of no less consequence to us than the right way and the wrong are to a traveller!

(2.) He would have them to consult antiquity, the observations and experiences of those that went before them: "Ask for the old paths, enquire of the former age <Job 8:8>, ask thy father, thy elders <Deut. 32:7>, and thou wilt find that the way of godliness and righteousness has always been the way which God has owned and blessed and in which men have prospered. Ask for the old paths, the paths prescribed by the law of God, the written word, that true standard of antiquity. Ask for the paths that the patriarchs travelled in before you, Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; and, as you hope to inherit the promises made to them, tread in their steps. Ask for the old paths, Where is the good way?" We must not be guided merely by antiquity, as if the plea of prescription and long usage were alone sufficient to justify our path. No; there is an old way which wicked men have trodden, <Job 22:15>. But, when we ask for the old paths, it is only in order to find out the good way, the highway of the upright. Note, The way of religion and godliness is a good old way, the way that all the saints in all ages have walked in.

(3.) He would have them to resolve to act according to the result of these enquiries: "When you have found out which is the good way, walk therein, practise accordingly, keep closely to that way, proceed, and persevere in it." Some make this counsel to be given them with reference to the struggles that were between the true and false prophets, between those that said they should have peace and those that told them trouble was at the door; they pretended they knew not which to believe: "Stand in the way," says God, "and see, and enquire, which of these two agrees with the written word and the usual methods of God's providence, which of these directs you to the good way, and do accordingly."

(4.) He assures them that, if they do thus, it will secure the welfare and satisfaction of their own souls: "Walk in the good old way and you will find your walking in that way will be easy and pleasant; you will enjoy both your God and yourselves, and the way will lead you to true rest. Though it cost you some pains to walk in that way, you will find an abundant recompence at your journey's end."

(5.) He laments that this good counsel, which was so rational in itself and so proper for them, could not find acceptance: "But they said, We will not walk therein, not only we will not be at the pains to enquire which is the good way, the good old way; but when it is told us, and we have nothing to say to the contrary but that it is the right way, yet we will not deny ourselves and our humours so far as to walk in it." Thus multitudes are ruined for ever by downright wilfulness.

2. By way of admonition concerning their danger. Because they would not be ruled by fair reasoning, God takes another method with them; by less judgments He threatens greater, and sends His prophets to give them this explication of them, and to frighten them with an apprehension of the danger they were in (v. 17); Also I set watchmen over you. God's ministers are watchmen, and it is a great mercy to have them set over us in the Lord. Now observe here,

(1.) The fair warning given by these watchmen. This was the burden of their song; they cried again and again, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. God, in His Providence, sounds the trumpet <Zech. 9:14>; the watchmen hear it themselves and are affected with it <Jer. 4:19>, and they are to call upon others to hearken to it too, to hear the Lord's controversy, to observe the voice of Providence, to improve it, and answer the intentions of it.

(2.) This fair warning slighted: "But they said, We will not hearken; we will not hear, we will not heed, we will not believe; the prophets may as well save themselves and us the trouble." The reason why sinners perish is because they do not hearken to the sound of the trumpet; and the reason why they do not is because they will not; and they have no reason to give why they will not but because they will not, that is, they are herein most unreasonable. One may more easily deal with ten men's reasons than one man's will.

The Terrorist and his Nom de Guerre

The following 'word-for-word' statistics were recently printed in a Los Angeles Times article quoting The U.S. State Department and The Associated Press concerning the terrorist bombings in Africa:

1996: Osama bin Laden declares "war" against U.S.

1998: Bin Laden linked to bombings at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Other Prominent Arab Militants:

Ayman Zawehiri: Considered close to Bin Laden since Afghan war. Once believed in Switzerland, but now in Afghanistan. A doctor by training. President Clinton froze his assets in 1995.

Rifal Ahmad Taha: Considered main figure in Egypt's Islamic Group. Nom de guerre, Abu Yassar.

Mustafa Hamza: A leader of Islamic Group. Served time for Sadat's assassination. Nom de guerre, Abu Hazem.

Mohammed Islambouli: A leader of Islamic Group. Clinton froze his assets in 1995.

America's Commonality

Some of the parallels between Sodom and today's America are found in Ezekial 16:49:

"Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy."

Examples:

The modern expressions of; "I'm proud to be an American," "I'm so proud of you," "team pride," and "made with pride in America."

Converting God's plentiful gifts (the fullness of bread) by eating and drinking to excess for the gratification of the lusts, or the purging of it through excessive exercise and vain worship of the body.

There are now ten 3-day national holidays each year--30 days off. 42 additional weekends--84 days off. An average of 7 sick days allowed--7 days off. Vacation average, 2 weeks--14 days off. Total: 135 days off, out of 365. Average hours per week worked by a production worker: 34 hours out of 168.

Along with the ease of abundance, and the love it, comes the temptation of idleness. Idleness is an inlet to much sin, for "The standing waters gather filth and the sitting bird is the fowler's mark."

The continual manipulation and oppression of the poor and needy continually breeds crime, and dependence.

Nationhood? and The Postal Service

In a Commentary by CFR'er George Will published in The Post and Courier on June 25, 1998, he stated that:

America's march to true nationhood was halting, in part because of economic rivalries among regions. In his new book, "A History of the American People," Paul Johnson notes that the word "nation," which some Southerners found objectionable, does not appear in The Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, and even Chief Justice John Marshall, the supreme nationalizer, used the word gingerly: "America has chosen to be, in many respects and for many purposes, a nation."

Early in the 19th century, during debates on the building of the National Road, Sen. William Smith of -- where else? -- South Carolina objected to "this insidious word" which was, he said, inimical to "the origins and theory of our government" as a confederation of sovereign states. It took roads -- and canals, railroads, the Postal Service, and especially the New Deal's redistribution of wealth toward the South -- to provide the economic prerequisite of national unity.

Ultimus Depravitus

Clinton, his wife, and Starr-- each one a lawyer.

The blessings of the Clinton/Lewinski lie-a-thon are found in the full exposure of the lawyers involved, and the truth of Our Lord's admonition:

"Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered." Luke 11:52

Because it has already been written in His Divine Word, all Christians need not wonder where the truth is found within the temples of the Pharisees, scribes and lawyers of Washington, D.C.

There is none!!

Issue the Thirty-third

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

The Theology of History...

Tithing, Negotiable Instruments and Commercial Paper...

Twelve Reasons Why the Bible is the Word of God...

Matthew Arnold's Modernism...

Bar Attorney Facts...

In Whose Name Do You Call?...

Milton on Christian Liberty...

Bits and Pieces...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

The Theology of History

An Introduction to Providential Historiography

by Greg Loren Durand

Dr. Gary North once remarked:

"Neutrality does not exist. Everything must be interpreted in terms of what God has revealed. The humanistic goal of neutral language... was overturned at the Tower of Babel. Our definitions must be in terms of biblical revelation." Gary North, "In Defense of Biblical Bribery," in R.J. Rushdoony's, Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, N. J.: Craig Press, 1973), p. 843.

History, of course, is not exempted from this requirement. Secular Humanist historians view human events and the passage of time as the outworking of mere chance; history therefore has no discernible point of origin, no structure, and no culmination to which it directs our gaze. The world view of the Humanist is both nihilistic and non-chronological; nothing is ultimately knowable and nothing can really be communicated from one generation to another. In the words of one Humanist writer:

"There is no one key to the riddle of historical causation. At times one or another factor may rise to a position of transcendent importance, but no single "cause" or "influence" has been dominant throughout all of human history." Harry Elmer Barnes, Living in the Twentieth Century (Indianapolis, Indiana: Bobbs-Merrill, 1928), page 361.

More to the point, the Second Humanist Manifesto declared:

"[W]e can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. While there is much that we do not know, humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves." Humanist Manifesto II (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1980), p. 16.

The Humanist can never learn from the past because the past has nothing to teach him. Because everything is in a constant state of flux, it is impossible for the Humanist to understand the past; he is unable to analyze past events because he cannot assume that either the scientific method or the ethical system which he employs to conduct his analysis were relevant to that particular time. He is unable to establish a mental link to people long dead, for the world they saw and the emotions they felt were likely nothing like his own. In a word, history to the Humanist is meaningless; he is cut off from the family of man to drift aimlessly through a disjointed and unattached existence toward a frighteningly unpredictable future.

In his book 1984, George Orwell wrote, "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." It should not surprise us that Humanists will interpret, or even rewrite history as current circumstances or political agendas may require. The god of the Humanist (and we must never doubt the fact that the Humanist does in fact worship a god) is a territorial god; he is bound to the here and now and his dominion is confined to what can be seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted. His is a god which disdains precedent, rejects established (Christian) customs and usages, and instead commands his worshippers to indulge themselves in the pursuit of momentary pleasures or private gain. A people who have bowed their knee to such an idol as this cannot be free; they must be subjugated to tyrants who rule according to superior force rather than a set system of "ethics" (Christian morals), for, as the Humanist believes, "there are no absolutes, no values, or facts outside space and time, only those ends in view and facts that we help to discover or create." (see Sidney Ratner, essay: "Facts and Values in History," The Humanist, January-February, 1957, page 38).

True Law is inseparably tied to history (*see Endnote), and if history is irrelevant or mutable according to circumstances, then the only "law" which can restrain the tyrant or govern his conquered domain is that which he discovers by "trial and error" (*see Editor's Endnote), or that which he creates out of thin air as "necessity" dictates. As C.S Lewis cautioned:

"Let us not be deceived by phrases about 'Man taking charge of his own destiny.' All that can really happen is that some men will take charge of the destiny of the others." C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdman's Pubishing Company, 1972), p. 316.

Thus, the people are increasingly heavy-laden under a legal yoke of the forever changing codes, rules, and regulations that arise from an equally forever changing "public policy." Deprived of any historical reference point by which to evaluate their condition, and deprived of a belief in a transcendent Being to whom they can turn for aid in the midst of their plight, such a people will eventually resort to revolutionary means of securing their freedom from one tyrant and their subsequent bondage to another with his own baseless laws and changing policies. Thus, the unbeliever is forced to affirm, with Vladimir Lenin, that:

"the real driving force of history is the revolutionary class struggle," V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, (Moscow: Progress Pub., 1980), Vol. XI, p. 71.

or with Karl Marx, that:

"Revolutions are the locomotives of history." Karl Marx, The Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850, in Collected Works of Karl Marx New York, N. Y.: International Pub., 1978), Vol. X, page 122.

"Does history support a belief in God?" The answer, according to the Humanist, is a "reluctant negative." (see Will and Ariel Durant, The Lessons of History (New York, N. Y.: Simon and Schuster, 1968), p. 46.)

The Christian, however, does not succumb to such a "reluctant" infidelity. History not only supports a belief in God, but confirms it. As Carl F.H. Henry wrote:

"Christianity claims to be an historical religion not simply in the sense that all world religions are historical, that is, phenomena of human history; it asserts more than this, namely, that the living God decisively grounds divine revelation in specific external events attested in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures." Carl F.H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority (Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1976), Vol. II, p. 312.

"Because God created a true universe outside of Himself, there is a true history which exists." Francis Schaeffer, The God Who is There, in the Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer (West-chester, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1982), Volume 1, page 113.

Cicero once declared, "To be ignorant of what happened before you were born is to be ever a child." History to the Christian is to be diligently and honestly studied and the lessons of the past are to be applied to the present. We are not to be ignorant of history (1 Corinthians 10:1), not only because the events of the past have shaped our present, just as what we do today will effect our children's tomorrow, but more importantly, that "we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive" (Ephesians 4:14). Children are generally not conscious of a reality outside of their own limited experience and must be told by others how to think and act. The mature Christian man, however, is able to both think for and govern himself. He possesses an inward "code of ethics" (Christian morals) which is derived (and reinforced and confirmed) from study of the true history of the Bible and of the lives of faithful Christians who have gone before him. He is able to review the mistakes of his predecessors in the Faith and to intelligently apply the lessons learned therefrom to avoid repeating their mistakes, and he is likewise able to imitate his forebears when he discerns that they acted rightly. As Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition..." (1 Corinthians 10:11). In this way, each generation of Christians is enabled to build upon the foundations laid by past generations, ever moving Christendom forward in its moral and social development. (Gary North referred to this development as "progressive corporate sanctification" (see Westminster's Confession [Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1991], page 257).

Make no mistake about it, mankind owes its progress to the Christian Church as she is led by the Holy Spirit, not to the heathen ramblings of unregenerate pseudo-intellectuals and revisionist historians who see man's existence as nothing more than a bloody "survival of the fittest," (or "law of the jungle").

The reprobate philosopher Voltaire insisted that history is merely "a collection of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind"; it is nothing more than a curiosity by which the unbeliever is "ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Timothy 3:7). The Scriptures, on the other hand, teach providential historiography - the doctrine that history is the manifestation of God's providential dealings with His creation for the benefit of His people, the Church. "We know, wrote the Apostle Paul, "that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose" (Romans 8:28). When preaching to the heathen philosophers on Mars Hill, Paul stated:

"God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands [He is not a territorial god] neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though He needed any thing, seeing He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after Him, and find Him, though He be not far from every one of us: for in Him we live, and move, and have our being (Acts 17:24-28).

Man is indeed responsible for the estate in which he finds himself, but at the same time, there is a Higher Will that directs his will and moves his every thought and action to accomplish a purpose often unknown to himself. "A man's heart deviseth his way but the LORD directeth his steps" (Proverbs 16:9). Even "the king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: He turneth it withersoever He will" (Proverbs 21:1).

To again quote Henry:

"Yahweh vindicates his holy purpose even amid human actions that defiantly repudiate him and his concerns. All historical events are subject to his overruling omnipotence and inescapably serve his intended ends; even the untoward actions of wicked men are made sovereignly instrumental to God's purposes of redemptive grace and triumphant righteousness. Mankind's self-assertive and rebellious will in no case diminishes the course of events under Yahweh's sovereign control; even the most insolent actions of unregenerate humanity promote a divine overarching purpose. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, page 254.

All things, including time itself, serve the will of the True and Living God. History is therefore His story; God has orchestrated the affairs of the earth to bring honor to His Son Jesus Christ and glory to Himself. God the Father has promised to give the nations of the world to the Son as His inheritance (Psalm 2:8), and history is the ongoing fulfillment of that promise. To study history is to study God; history is theology. To interpret history in any other way is to adopt the mindset of the atheist.

Let us remember that all confederacies, leagues, united states or nations that do not bow their knee and covenant with the God of history and with His appointed King are doomed to fall into ruin (Psalm 2:11-12, 9:17), to lose their place in history, and to be forgotten by future generations (Hosea 4:6). As we have seen, any people who reject the Covenant of Life which was ratified in the Blood shed by Jesus Christ will necessarily embrace the covenant of death which is ratified, but never satisfied, by the blood shed by millions of victims in an ongoing series of revolutions (Proverbs 8:36). The Church of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, however, will endure throughout history and will, as the Prophet Daniel foresaw, expand to fill the whole earth (Daniel 2:35).

Endnote

American liberties, particularly those spelled out in the Bill of Rights, have their origin in the Magna Charta which King John was forced to sign on 15 June, 1215 at Runnymeade, England. Most Americans today have never read the Bill of Rights, and an even greater number have never heard of the Magna Charta. Consequently, it is not surprising that they offer no resistance when the last remaining vestiges of liberty are stripped from them by often-contrived "national emergencies."

Editor's Endnote

"Systems of taxation are not framed, nor is it possible to frame them, with perfect distribution of benefit and burden. Their authors must be satisfied with a rough and ready form of justice. This is true in special measure while the workings of a novel method are untested by a rich experience. There must be advance by trial and error." Cardozo, J., in Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee (1933), 288 U.S. 517, 586, cited in Megarry, A Second Miscellany at Law (1973), p. 258. [All systems of taxation are based on irrational secular reason. Benefit and burden are the connection, and once the connection is made, arbitrariness (trial and error) is the rule to achieve "equality."]

Editor's Note

Greg Loren Durand is editor of the quarterly journal Grace & Law Review, and author of: The Five Points of Christianity; In God We Trust? The Deadly Cancer of the "Health and Wealth Gospel"; De Legis et Gubernatis: The Christian's Duty to the Civil Magistrate; The God Who Isn't There: Examining the Process Theology of Modern Arminian Scholars; and "Communion with the Gods" - The Pagan Alter of Freemasonry.

For further information on the moderately priced above titles and reprints of The Real Lincoln, American Bastile, Liberty and Slavery, A True Estimate of Abe Lincoln, and a complete price list of other available reprints, write to:

Crown Rights Book Company
c/o Post Office Box 769
Wiggins, Mississippi C.S.A. [39577]

Website: http://members.aol.com/crwnrts/resource.htm

Tithing, Negotiable Instruments and Commercial Paper

This is such a testy subject with all sorts of possibilities in the human mind that we feel compelled to address it here. God, in His Word, has given specific instructions regarding the manner of tithing which we will not be addressing. We will be addressing the issue of the form and the substance of the tithe. God addressed this as well, but in modern thought commercial paper is seen by the natural man as the equivalent of the Biblical mandate, because it appears to perform the same purpose as substance. And it is here that the Good and Lawful Christian departs from the ways of the world.

The basis is this: to date we have never found any mandate in Scripture which allows to the modern concept of using commercial paper for tithing purposes.

Modern pagan law uses commercial paper in all its transactions with its entities because of the doctrine of parity, i.e., unlike kind ought not to be joined. The corollary of this is that like kind ought to be joined. So that, because the modern corporation exists on paper, it ought to be joined to like kind--commercial paper.

Christ's church on the other hand, does not exist on paper but in the hearts of men, and is expressed in their outward acts related to the local church's general form of worship. And this is where the situation gets ugly fast: It is impossible for the True church of Christ to receive and accept commercial paper in lieu of Lawful substance declared in God's Word and maintain that the tithe is Lawful. Why? Because without permission in Scripture allowing such practice, there can be no Law supporting such a transaction. We must look at this more closely to see what is said, for this is not an adiaphoric position. We will approach this from three points: First, what money is; Second, what is commercial paper or negotiable instruments; and, Three duties of fiduciaries, borrowing from the digests and treatises the powers and duties of agents to their principals. All sections apply not only to those having charge over this particular affair, but also to those who tithe to Christ's church.

Going to Scripture we find the following concerning "money" which applies to Christ's church:

"And the shekel shall be twenty gerahs: twenty shekels, five and twenty shekels, fifteen shekels, shall be your maneh." Ezekiel 45:12.

The last word above is a word which is key to the issue of "money." Many have never concerned themselves with looking up the definition of this word, but have pursued other areas looking to justify the commercial expedient using their natural reason. We cannot allow ourselves this luxury.

MANEH. A fixed weight or measured amount, i.e. (techn.) a maneh or mina:--maneh, pound. Strong's Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary, p. 68.

Notice what money is: a fixed weight of substance. This is the first line of separation for Christ's church. Christ's church gives those things which have their origin in the creations of God, for the Christian Inherits these things from God through Christ. This chain must never be broken at any time, lest the Covering and Sanctuary of God be lost. Let us also understand that if one uses these fixed weights of substance in his tithe to the church, it is not the physical substance that is being tithed. It is rather the pre-conditioned Inherited right from God through Christ Jesus in the substance being tithed signifying our bond to Him in covenant. In other words, the substance we see with our eyes is not the substance God sees. The substance we see with our eyes is the token of what God sees, both being in agreement--the two witness evidence rule of Scripture. We know this to be true for God's Word brought the silver into being 3, declares the purposes for it, and the standing it has in His Original Estate (see Genesis 1:1). Examining the word "token" we see that what is being done sets the character of the tithe, whether Lawful or lawless:

TOKEN. 1. Something that serves to indicate a fact, event, object, feeling, etc.; a sign or symbol. 2. A sign or mark indicating some quality, or distinguishing one object from others; a characteristic mark O.E. 3. Something serving as proof of a fact or statement; an evidence. Oxford Universal Dictionary (1955), p. 2205.

It also serves to declare the character, whether Lawful or lawless, of the one tendering it. We see from the above definition that the substance God has given His church has a different quality, characteristic and is distinguishable from those things springing from the mind of the natural man: commodities, commercial paper, or negotiable instruments. You may consider your self blessed by the whopping numbers appearing on the face of the negotiable instrument, but did you ever ask your self this question: Does God need that which originates in the natural man to bless you? Does God need treasures of wickedness originating in the mind of the natural man for His church to prosper? For if God is truly a God of the living, how could He partake of those things of death?

One more thing I might add here, is that these commercial instruments add burdens, i.e. finance charges, late fees, interest, penalties, and the like, with them which distinguishes them from God:

"The blessing of the LORD, it maketh rich, and he addeth no sorrow with it." Proverbs 10:22
"Treasures of wickedness profit nothing: but righteousness delivereth from death" Proverbs 10:2

I need not proceed any further in this issue for this part is resolved as follows: Whatever you tender in tithe to Christ's church has a specific character which evidences with whom you have a covenant: either your covenant is sealed by the Blood of Christ; or, your covenant is with death, through the use of commercial paper and negotiable instruments.

Now to the issue of fiduciaries. We must look at this particular issue from God's perspective and notice what is said here concerning fiduciaries, which all Executors are by the nature of the office they occupy:

"Agency means a fiduciary relationship by which a party confides to another the management of some business to be transacted in the former's name or on his account, and by which such other assumes to do the business and render an account of it." Huckabee v. Pullman Co., 8 F.2d 43; Parker v. Wilson, 137 S.W. 926, 2299 Ark. 344; Dyar v. Georgia Power Co., 176 S.E. 711, 173 S.C. 527; Reed v. Hester, 44 S.W.2d 1107.

Although we used the doctrines applying to agency they are general enough to be applied to all fiduciaries. There are subtle distinctions between an agent and an executor, but for purposes of this discussion they are not needed at this time. We see then that the agent must account to his principal for all transactions in which he is bound. All funds or tithes coming into the fiduciary's hands must be accounted to his Principal:

"It is the duty of the agent to account to his principal for all property or funds belonging to his principal which come into his hands by virtue of his agency." Insurance etc. Co. v. Land Co., 58 So. 228; Arkansas Fertilizer Co. v. Banks, 128 S.W. 566, 95 Ark. 86; Jackson v. Gallagher, 57 S.E. 750; 128 Ga. 321; Duff v. Blair, 74 App.Div. 364, 77 N.Y.S. 444; Auburn v. Draper, 23 Barb. 425; Hay v. Hall, 28 Barb. 378.

And it is here that the rub comes. Are fictions of man's law to be accounted the equal of the Substance mandated in God's Law? Let us examine this point in light of the Redemptive Work and Atonement of Christ Jesus and compare the redemptive work and atonement of a certificate of life birth and certificate of death. Would the Justice of God's Righteous Law be satisfied with the latter? If so, why then did He not pursue this course of action? If it does not satisfy these requirements of His Law then we must examine Scripture to find how the church is to handle this affair:

"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matthew 5:48

Because our Father is perfect, the image He imprints on our hearts is initially perfect, but covered when we begin to answer to different and strange foreign law. This is why it is necessary to have on the breastplate of righteousness at all times--so that the Seal of our Father imprinted on our hearts is not lost or coerced.

Further, there are certain requirements of loyalty of the fiduciary to his Principal:

58. Duty of Loyalty. The duty of an agent to be loyal to his trust is of paramount importance in the relationship between the agent and his principal. The foundation of the agency is the faith and confidence which the principal reposes in his agent. Keller v. American Chain Co., 255 N.Y. 94, 174 N.E. 74.

"Inasmuch as an agent is essentially a fiduciary, he is required to extend the benefit of his skill and discretion solely in the interests of the party who employs him. If the agent places himself in a position adverse to the best interests of his principal by secretly promoting his own interests or those of another principal, the law will condemn the transaction and afford relief to the aggrieved principal." Elco Shoe Manufacturers, Inc. v. Sisk, 260 N.Y. 100, 183 N.E. 191.
"An agent owes to his principal the duty of acting within the limits of his actual [*constituted] authority. The actual authority is that power which the principal has expressly or impliedly conferred upon his agent.
"From the aspect of third parties, however, the actual authority may be expanded by factors which increase the agent's scope of authority. Secs. 76, 78, 85, and 86, infra. Therefore, an agent has the power, by acting within the apparent scope of his authority, to bind his principal to an unauthorized contract with a third party. In such a case, if the principal [*Christ and His church] suffers any loss [*damage] as a result of the unauthorized contract [*deed or act], the agent will be liable for exceeding his authority. An agent who acts within the limitations of his authority may, nevertheless, be liable for his failure to obey the lawful instructions [*Scripture] of his principal [*Christ Jesus]. If an agent, acting in good faith, deviates from his specific instructions, with- out sufficient cause, he is responsible to his principal for any resultant damages." Rush v. Rush, 170 Ill. 623, 48 N.E. 990; Persons v. Smith, 12 N.D. 403, 97 N.W. 551; Holmes v. Langston, 110 Ga. 861, 36 S.E. 251; Rotwein on Agency, pp. 41-42. [*Insertions added].

If there is a breach of trust, good faith is not a valid defense:

"If an agent is guilty of a breach of trust, his good faith is immaterial, and the fact that his principal has not been damaged is likewise immaterial." Taussig v. Hart, 58 N.Y. 425; Michoud v. Girard, 4 How.(U.S.) 503, 11 L.Ed. 1076.
"The fact that the agent acted in good faith, or that the course pursued by him was reasonable, or that it was intended for the benefit of the principal, is immaterial." 40 Am.Dig., Principal and Agent (Cent. Ed.) sec. 92 (d); Switzer & Switzer v. Connett, 11 Mo. 88; Rechtscherd v. Accommodation Bank, 47 Mo. 88; Coker v. Ropes, 125 Mass. 577; 16 Am.Dig., Principal and Agent (Dec. Ed.) sec. 57 (d).

This also applies if the fiduciary believes that he acted in a proper manner, but failed to carry out the duty in the manner pointed out by the instructions regulating the relationship.

"If an agent performs an authorized act, but not in the specific manner directed, the proper remedy of the principal is an action in damages for breach of contract." Minneapolis Trust Co. v. Mather, 181 N.Y. 205, 73 N.E. 987.
"If, however, an agent performs an act entirely different from the one which his principal directed, as for instance, the disposition of property in a manner not authorized, the remedy of the principal is an action ex delicto for conversion." Laverty v. Snethen, 68 N.Y. 522, 23 Am.Rep. 184; King v. MacKellar, 109 N.Y. 215, 16 N.E. 201.

A few cases will allow for deviation from explicit instructions, but not from all instructions. In the latter case, God's Law is superior to all other law, so that whatever He requires can never be illegal by the "law" of His creatures.

"A deviation from instructions will be excused where an unforeseen emergency requires the agent, in the exercise of his reasonable discretion, to disregard them," Jervis v. Hoyt, 2 Hun.(N.Y.) 637; Drummond v. Wood, 2 Caines(N.Y.) 310; Harter v. Blanchard, 64 Barb.(N.Y.) 617; Bartlett v. Sparkman, 95 Mo. 136; 8 S.W. 406,
"or when obedience would require the agent to perform an illegal act." Brown v. Howard, 14 Johns.(N.Y.) 119; Tiffany on Agency, 2d ed., sec. 144.

Thus, the issue is not whether our Principal has suffered damage or whether we act in good faith; but, whether a breach of the fiduciary duty by us has occurred. What shall we say then? That ignorance of the Law is no excuse because God's Law is not private, but general:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed [it] unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" Romans 1:18-20. [Emphasis added.]
"Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all in a sworn officer of the law." In re McCowan (1917), 177 C. 93, 170 P. 1100.
"Ignorance of law signifies ignorance of the law of one's own country." Haven v. Foster (1829), 9 Pick.(Mass.) 111.
"All are presumed to know the law [*of God]." San Francisco Gas Co. v. Brickwedel (1882), 62 C. 641; Dore v. Southern Pacific Co. (1912), 163 C. 182, 124 P. 817; People v. Flanagan (1924), 65 C.A. 268, 223 P. 1014; Lincoln v. Superior Court (1928), 95 C.A. 35, 271 P. 1107; San Francisco Realty Co. v. Linnard (1929), 98 C.A. 33, 276 P. 368. [Insertion added].
"According to Lord Westbury in Cooper v. Phibbs, (L. R. 2 H. L. 170), the word jus in the maxim ignorantia juris haud excusat is used in the sense of "general law, the law of the country," not in the sense of "a private right." The true meaning of that maxim is that parties cannot excuse themselves from liability from all civil or criminal consequences of their acts by alleging ignorance of the law, but there is no presumption that parties must be taken to know all the legal consequences of their acts, and especially where difficult questions of law, or of the practice of the court are involved." Lord FitzGerald, Seaton v. Seaton, in L. R. 13 App.Cas. 78.

All of the rules governing the use of commercial paper are private law. These are not necessary for the body of believers to know, for God's Word warns them of the dangers of using such artifices. We must know our general Law to avoid the pitfalls of private law. Never accept any commercial instruments of any kind to remain in and under the protection of God our Father.

Twelve Reasons Why The Bible

Is the Word of God

by Carl McIntire

The Bible, also called the Holy Scriptures, consists of the old Testament and the New Testament, with a total of 66 books, and it is the confession of the historic Christian Church that it is indeed and in truth the very Word of God. The Bible gives to us a direct message from Heaven. It is a special revelation, having been delivered to us by the prophets, the apostles, and Jesus Christ being Himself the chief cornerstone. The Lord Jesus Christ said, "The scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). Moreover, it must be emphasized that this is the only Book which is the Word of God or ever will be, and no tradition, or encyclical of a church can be equal with the Word of God.

In the twentieth century especially Satan, in his hatred of God and His Word, has made an attack upon the trustworthiness and the authority of this Book from within the church, in the name of modern scholarship, higher criticism, liberalism, neo-orthodoxy, and new evangelicalism.

The first ordination question which I as a minister answered in the affirmative, and which is required of a Bible Presbyterian minister, is, "Do you believe the Old and the New testaments to be the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice?"

The pre-eminent reason, however, which stands above every other possible consideration, as to why we believe the Bible is the Word of God, has been beautifully summarized in the first chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith, as follows:

"The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (Who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God."

In accord therefore with these we list twelve reasons:

1. THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD because it specifically declares itself to be all inspired by God.

2 Timothy 3:15-17: "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

2. THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD because the apostles declared it to be the work of the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity.

2 Peter 1:19, 21: "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:... For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
1 Timothy 4:1, 6: "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;... If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained."

3. THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD because Jesus Christ, the Son of God, declared that it is trustworthy as it testifies of Him.

John 5:38, 39, 46, 47: "And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.... For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"
Matthew 24:35: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

4. THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD because God speaks directly in the Scriptures. Such words as, "The word of the Lord," "God spake," "Thus sayeth the Lord," and similar statements occur more than 2,500 times. If it is not the Word of God, it is the greatest fraud of all history.

Genesis 1:3: "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."
Exodus 3:7: "And the Lord said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people..."
Leviticus 1:1: "And the Lord called unto Moses, and spake unto him..."
Numbers 1:1: "And the Lord spake unto Moses in the wilderness..."
Deuteronomy 1:6: "The Lord our God spake unto us in Horeb, saying, ..."
Joshua 1:1: "the Lord spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister, saying,"

5. THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD because of specially fulfilled prophecies spanning centuries.

Matthew 1:22, 23: "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
The reference to the virgin birth is in Isaiah 7:14, spoken 750 years before; "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,..."

6. THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD because the most specific details in the birth, life, ministry, death, resurrection, ascension, and second coming of Jesus Christ were all presented centuries before He ever arrived on earth.

Luke 24:44-46: "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
John 14:29: "And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe."

7. THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD because the prophets testify that they spoke at His command and in His name.

Jeremiah 1:7, 9: "But the LORD said unto me, Say not, I am a child: for thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak. Then the LORD put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth."
2 Samuel 23:1-2: "Now these be the last words of David.... the Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue."

8. THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD because its inspiration extended even to the precise word used and chosen to convey God's message to man.

Galatians 3:15, 16: "Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."
Matthew 5:18: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

9. THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD because the apostles recognized that they were indeed the media for the communication of this divine Word.

1Thessalonians 2:13: "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."
2 Peter 1:16: "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty."

10. THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD because of the heavenliness of its subject matter as it reveals to us God Himself--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit--His being, attributes, decrees, and plan.

Romans 11:33-36: "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen."

11. THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD because it alone presents the one and only way of salvation for lost sinners.

John 14:10: "The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."
John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
John 20:31: "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

12. THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD because God forbids anyone to add to it or to take from it. The Almighty God who cannot lie has sealed the volume.

Proverbs 30:5, 6: "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."
Revelation 22:18, 19: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

This is the Book, "the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God" (Eph. 6:17). We must use it in our battle with Satan as our Lord used it in the mount of temptation. It is our standard of righteousness in our dealings with others and society. It is our only effective weapon in the battle with the godless Communist conspiracy. Here God must deliver us.

There is no attack made upon the Scriptures which cannot be answered, no alleged contradiction which cannot be explained. The spade of the archaeologist alone, in the twentieth century, has explored many of the theories and the "all critics agree" philosophy.

The latest and most effective attack ever made by Satan on God's Word is seen in the "new translations" as represented in the Revised Standard Version (RSV), "authorized and copyrighted" by the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., and by The New English Bible. These so-called translations introduce contradictions, remove words and passages, and take unjustified liberties in translating. As a result, the authority and inerrancy of the Scriptures is destroyed "within the Scripture itself." The reader is the victim of the bias and slant of the "modernist" scholars who do not believe the Book to be the Word of God. The cherished King James Version thus still remains the best and most acceptable translation the English-speaking world possesses. The infallability of the Scriptures extends to the original "photographs" in the Hebrew and Aramaic, for the Old Testament; and the Greek, for the New Testament. All translations into whatever language are known as "versions." So careful has been the transmission of the Scriptures through the centuries by those who believed it to be the very Word of God that we have indeed today a record preserved in God's providence which we can trust.

"The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture, (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly."
"The Supreme Judge, by whom all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture."

The above quotations are Sections IX and X of Chapter I, of the Westminster Confession of Faith. But Section V is our conclusion:

"We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole, (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts."

Jesus Christ said, "Thy word is truth" (John 17:17).

Editor's Note: Dr. McIntire's booklets, The New Bible--Revised Standard Version--Why Christians should Not Accept It, and The New English Bible--New Testament--What Modernism and Ecumenism Do to the Word of God, may be had for 10 cents each, by addressing the 20th Century Reformation Center, Collingswood, New Jersey.

Matthew Arnold's Modernism

by John Senior

from his Death of Christian Culture, (1978), pp. 1-4.

Matthew Arnold was one of the hinges on which the English speaking world, a century ago, turned from Christianity to Modernism. He was a most fair-minded and articulate exponent of the Liberal view and, like many Liberals today, still thought of himself--somehow--as a Christian. But he wrote:

"In spite of the crimes and follies in which it lost itself, the French Revolution derives from the force, truth, and universality of the ideas which it took for its law, and from the passion with which it could inspire a multitude for these ideas, a unique and still living power; it is--it will probably long remain--the greatest, the most animating event in history."

Arnold had absorbed a classical education from a famous Christian father. He had the highest respect for Christianity, but did not believe it. The [French] Revolution was the 'greatest, the most animating event in history,' he said--not the Crucifixion. He was convinced that the revolutionaries had carried things too far in the right direction. The 'religious problem,' as he calls it, is how to reconceive Christianity so as to put it in the service of the Revolution:

"A fresh synthesis of the New Testament data--not a making war on them, in Voltaire's fashion, not leaving them out of mind, in the world's fashion, but the putting a new construction upon them the taking them from under the old, traditional, conventional point of view and placing them under a new one--is the very essence of the religious problem, as now presented and only by efforts in this direction can it receive a solution."

The identification of the traditional with the conventional is, of course, as old as sophistry, and often serves an an opening for change.

But Christ Himself said, 'Omnia mihi tradita sunt a Patre meo.' Christian doctrine is not the result of convention, though it is indeed traditional: 'All things have been handed down to Me by the Father.' Christianity can never serve the times. According to the Declaration of the Rights of Man, liberty is the power of doing what we will [*not what He wills], so long as it does not injure another. In a sense this can be true (provided that the will is rightly formed [*and only God's is rightly formed]). But according to the Liberal view, 'Do what thou wilt' includes willing to do what thou shouldst not. The Liberal takes a stand in No Man's Land between 'the law in my members' and 'the law in my mind.' In that precarious and self-righteous place, doing what thou wilt must always injure others, if what thou wilt is separate from the good. By doing evil to others or to ourselves, we first of all injure ourselves, because to do evil is the worst thing that can happen to a man. If others consent, the harm reciprocally injures everyone. There is no such thing as a victimless crime any more than a free lunch. There is no such thing as a Christianity in which the commandments of God are accommodated to the Rights of Man.

But to save appearances and secure a useful social continuity, the Liberal thinks 'religion' must be saved--though in the service of the revolution and its new culture in which God will depend for His existence on us. 'Religion,' Arnold writes,

"is the greatest and most important of the efforts by which the human race has manifested its impulses to perfect itself."

But no contingent being in itself can be the source of its own perfection, nor, given an infinity of contingent beings each dependent on another, could they all together be a source of their own perfection. [*"Perfect" legislators cannot create the perfect society by their "perfect" legislation.] Rather, some Being must exist necessarily, if any does contingently. For Arnold, that order is reversed. The necessary is made dependent on the contingent. And religion is:

"That voice of the deepest human experience, [which] does not only enjoin and sanction the aim which is the great aim of culture, the aim of setting ourselves to ascertain what perfection is and to make it prevail; but also, in determining generally in what perfection consists, religion comes to a conclusion identical with that ofculture."

For Arnold, religion works along with art, science, and philosophy to achieve what he calls 'perfection.' Perfection he defines in defiance of etymology:

"It is making endless additions to itself, in the endless expansion of its powers, in endless growth in wisdom and by beauty, that the spirit of the human race finds its ideal. To reach this ideal, culture is an indispensable aid, and that is the true value of culture. Not a having and a lasting, but a growing and a becoming is the character of perfection."

I said 'in defiance of etymology' because the root of the word perfection, exactly opposite to 'becoming,' means 'done,' 'complete,' totally at rest, 'having become'--per-facere. 'To reach the ideal,' Arnold says. But how can an ideal of 'endless growth' be reached? Here we have an old sophism dressed up as a new principle of Liberal religion--that perfection is becoming. The present historical task--always the present historical task in every age--is revolution, though Arnold more subtly insists that the revolution is best achieved by reinterpreting rather than simply destroying the past. At the metaphysical root of this error is the Heraclitean failure to solve the problem of the one and the many. Because nothing ever is, they say, there is nothing constant, only endless flux.

From this false view of becoming it immediately follows, and Arnold puts it in the same paragraph, that Liberal culture must be collectivist. For in an endless and contradictory movement there is no permanent substance. A person is a meaningless non-entity; so a number of coagulated non-entities, by their collective contingency, must somehow create their being out in front of them. It is a kind of Indian rope trick in which a tissue of non-entities throws its finality into the air and climbs after it. This is the basis of religious evolutionism--often confused with Newman's exactly contrary view of the development of doctrine--in which the whole of creation is forever hoisted on its own petard. Evolution, Newman insists, is not development. In development, what is given once and for all in the beginning is merely made explicit. What was given once and for all in Scripture and Tradition has been clarified by in succeeding generations, but only by addition, never contradiction; whereas evolution proceeds by negation. Newman devotes a whole chapter in An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine to refuting the idea that any thing contrary to dogma can ever be a proper development, nor any thing not found in the consensus of the Fathers dogma. Put positively, development is radically conservative, permitting only that change which helps doctrine to remain true by defining errors that arise in every age against it. Doctrine grows, as Ronald Knox puts it in a homely figure, like a horse's hoof, from trodding on hard, uneven ground."

Bar Attorney Facts

Attorn. "To turn or transfer, as from one estate to another." Webster's New International Dictionary (1931), page 150.

The American Bar Association

Article I

Name and Object

"This Association shall be known as the American Bar Association. Its objects shall be to advance the science of jurisprudence, promote the administration of justice and uniformity of legislation and of judicial decision throughout the Nation, uphold the honor of the profession of the law, encourage cordial intercourse among the members of the Bar organizations of the respective States on a representative basis in the interest of the legal profession and of the public throughout the United States."

Article II

Qualifications for Membership

"Any person who is a member in good standing of the Bar of any State or Territory of the United States, or of any of the territorial group, shall be eligible to membership in this Association, on endorsement, nomination and election as provided in the By-Laws of the Association. The term 'State' wherever used in this Constitution and By-Laws shall include each the District of Columbia and the Territory of Hawaii." Constitution and By-Laws of the American Bar Association (1936), adopted at the Fifty-ninth annual meeting, Boston, Massachusetts, Aug. 24, 1936.
"Once an attorney has represented a client in court, the client is barred from appearing in propria persona." Knox & Crawford v. Thomas 1806, (D.C.) 7 U.S. 649.
"First the attorney is an officer of the court, and both his legal duties and authority may be modified--either expanded or contracted--by legal and ethical rules regulating the practice of the law." Witkin California Procedure, 41, p. 49.
"An attorney is an officer of the court, and the presumption is that he acted within the scope of his employment." Security Loan & Trust Co. v. Estudillo (1901), 134 C. 166, 169, 66 P. 257.
"The right to have counsel does not justify a court in forcing a lawyer upon an accused who does not want one." Moore v. State of Michigan, 355 U.S. 155.
"Attorneys are not constitutional officers." Ex parte Williams, 20 S.W. 580, 581, 21 L.R.A. 783.
"Attorneys are officers of the court, and answerable to it for the proper performance of their professional duties." Clark v. Willett (1868), 35 C. 534.
"LAWYER. One who is permitted [licensed] to engage in the practice of law, to give legal advice, to represent clients in litigation, and to prepare legal documents. See Barrister; Solicitor." Radin, Law Dictionary (1955), p. 184. [Difference between attorneys and lawyers is drawn.]
"A party to an action may appear in proper person, or by attorney, but he cannot do both; and if he appears by attorney, he cannot assume control of the case." Board of Commissioners v. Younger (1865), 29 C. 147.
"A plea to the jurisdiction of the person must be pleaded in person and not by attorney. If pleaded by attorney, it is a submission to the jurisdiction of the court." 21 R.C.L. 543.
"The right to practice law is not a contract." Cohen v. Wright, 22 C. 293.
"The attorney's status as an officer of the court, and his sole power to act in legal proceedings, which distinguish him from an ordinary agent, are the basis for a strong presumption of authority." Witkin California Procedure, 41, p. 49.
"ATTORNEY-AT-LAW. 1. At the common-law, a person learned in the law, authorized to to give legal advice, prepare legal documents, and otherwise represent another in all legal transactions except those of pleading or arguing in court. The attorney was confined to activities at law as distinguished from equity. The corresponding official in equity was formerly called the solicitor which is now the term used for both branches. If litigation was involved, the attorney prepared the pleadings, but for trial and argument, he selected a barrister or King's counsel, and 'instructed' or briefed him.
2. In the United States, attorney-at-law is the general term for members of the legal profession. These are now licensed by special examination in all states and after such examination, 'admitted to the bar,' upon which they become 'officers of the court.' The American attorney-at-law both advises clients and pleads for them. There is no differentiation between attorneys and solicitors on the basis of law and equity or between the attorney and the barrister as to representation in court.

Other titles such as 'counsel,' 'counsellor,' 'solicitor,' 'proctor,' are used in some American courts, but are merely the equivalents of 'attorney-at-law.

See Canons of Professional Ethics, adopted by the American Bar Association, regarding the conduct prescribed for attorneys." Radin, Law Dictionary (1955), pp. 26-27.

"SHYSTER. (U.S. sl.) tricky lawyer, unscrupulous business man, etc. XIX. Prob. Based on G. scheisser, agent-nown of scheissen SHIT, with substitution of -STER. CF. SHICER." Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966), p. 825.
"SHICER. (sl.) worthless person; (Austral.) unproductive mine. XIX -G. Scheisser 'cacator, agent-noun of scheissen SHIT. Cf. SHYSTER." Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966), p. 820.

In Whose Name Do You Call?

by Walter Gordon

Greetings in the Name of Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus.

"For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:20.

When you phone 818 347-7080 someone will say, 'In Whose Name do you call?" or, "In Whose Name do you come?" The answer to these questions is found in Ephesians 2:10 and Philippians 4:21. Why is that? What does this have to do with Law or Jural Societies? This question has arisen before, and some have asked, "My Pastor doesn't answer the phone at his Church like this. What's the deal?"

Let me answer these questions through Scripture, and a historical speech. First, unless you are born again through Christ Jesus, you have no standing to use the Holy Scriptures in Law. There is no other access to the Only True God, who created the heavens and earth (Gen 1:1, Isa 42:5, 45:12, 48:18, 65:17, Col. 1:16, Rev. 10:6). Your righteousness shall (must) exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees. Christian common Law (Biblical Law applied) is not available to anyone who does not know Christ Jesus, and is especially not recognizable, for His edification, through the current Roman military commercial courts in America. Sorry folks, no matter what Scriptures you invoke into your pleadings, Our Lord will not recognize them in those courts as Biblical in nature.

Hopefully, you will see that there is no other Lawful way for The King's Men to answer the phone. If you do not come in the "Name above all names," but instead in your own name, then you have no standing in the only true Law. Your questions are a waste of time! Let us see what Dr. John Gill had to say about Matthew 5:20:

"Ver. 20. For I say unto you, &c.] These words are directed, not to the true disciples of Christ in general, or to his apostles in particular, but to the whole multitude of the people; who had in great esteem and admiration the Scribes and Pharisees, for their seeming righteousness and holiness; concerning which Christ says, that except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven. He mentions the Scribes, because they were the more learned part of the people, who were employed in writing out, and expounding the law; and the Pharisees, because they were the strictest sect among the Jews for outward religion and righteousness; and yet, it seems, their righteousness was very defective; it lay only in an external observance of the law: did not arise from a purified heart, or the principles of grace; nor was it performed sincerely, and with a view to the glory of God; but for their own applause, and in order to obtain eternal life: besides, they neglected the weightier matters of the law [*judgment, mercy, faith], and contented themselves with the lesser ones; and as they were deficient in their practice, so they were very lax in their doctrines, as appears from the foregoing verse.
Wherefore Christ informs his hearers, that they must have a better righteousness than these men had, if ever they expected to enter into the kingdom of heaven. There will be no admission into heaven without a righteousness: it was the loss of righteousness which removed Adam out of his earthly paradise: and it is not agreeable to the justice of God, to admit man into his kingdom and glory. A pharisaical righteousness will never bring a person thither; nor will any righteousness of man's, be it what it will, because the best is imperfect; it must be a righteousness exceeding that of the Scribes and Pharisees; and such is the righteousness of the saints: indeed their inherent righteousness, or the sanctification of the Spirit, is preferable to any righteousness of a natural man; it exceeds it in its author, nature, effects, and usefulness; yea, even works of righteousness done by believers are greatly preferable to any done by such men as are here mentioned: but, above all, the righteousness of Christ, which is imputed to them, and received by faith, is infinitely more excellent in its author, perfection, purity, and use; and which is their only right and title to eternal glory; and without which no man will be admitted into that glorious state." Gill's Commentaries, An Exposition of The New Testament, Vol. I, p. 35, 1852 reprint. [*Insertion added.]

It is clear that this commentary by John Gil shows that only through Christ Jesus will man enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, make no mistake about the following:

"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man cometh to the Father but by me" John 14:6.
"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" Acts 4:12.

No matter whether you claim to be Christian or non-Christian, it is only through Christ Jesus that you obtain your lawful authority, power, and standing on earth and in heaven. A recent experience put me in direct conflict with a Pastor of a local, unregistered Church. He finished reading "How the Church Fell From Grace" and "The Book of the Hundreds," and made his position clear to me. I'll paraphrase his comments, "It is easy to get a Non-Statutory Abatement win from a court (through the county clerk) which nobody recognizes in law, but show me a real win when you get a decision from a State Supreme Court, or the US Supreme Court."

His views mirror the forthcoming attempt of the "Christian Right" to tackle the corrupt political and legal systems in America. Although this Pastor is an ordained minister of God, has an extensive, historical knowledge of our legal system, and assists many Church's with un-incorporating (de-registering) around the country, he is flat wrong in his Biblical understanding of Law.

Let me show you why Christian common Law is the answer to access the only true God (in Law), and why filing a pleading into the Roman military commercial court has no foundation in Biblical Law.

"I appreciate, as fully as you do, the great and very radical change that is about being wrought in our system of administering justice by our new Constitution, and the law passed in obedience to it; and I can well understand the anxiety which you, a class of young attorneys, just entering upon your profession, would naturally have to be informed as to the nature of that change and the character of the new duties which will devolve upon you in consequence of it." Honorable John Worth Edmonds, Justice of the Supreme Court, New York, May 13, 1848.

These words written by Justice Edmonds to "the candidates [*17 total] for admission to practice as attorneys at the last April Term of the Supreme Court in the City of New York..." were in response to their letter of April, 1848, which in part states;

"The unsettled state of the practice upon which we are about entering, the innovations which have been and are being made in the judiciary, and the radical change in the administration of justice, admonish us not to act upon the perhaps crude ideas which we may have formed as to its efficiency, but to gather from the instructions of a long experience the guide to future action. Ours was the last examination under the now existing practice, and being, as it were, under your immediate supervision, we anticipated that you would address us on the manifold duties incumbent upon those who were then about entering upon the active discharge of their profession."

This is the background my Pastor friend, and others, need to hear. When someone argues for justice in those Roman military, commercial courts, without understanding the "radical change in the administration of justice" which took place in 1848, they will have no lawful precedent in which to base their Scriptural argument. The court makes its decisions based upon expediency, not true Law. With this introduction, let me quote from parts of the speech given by Justice Edmonds declaring this "radical change" to these young attorneys.

"It was the intention of the New Constitution in abolishing the Court of Chancery, not to destroy its functions, but to remove the Court as a separate tribunal from among our institutions. Its powers and duties were therefore carefully preserved, and were vested in the Supreme Court, which had always, until then, been a court of law as distinguished from one of Equity. This arrangement of the functions of those two tribunals naturally produced in the minds of those acquainted with the organization of the judicial tribunals, the idea that the Court of Equity was to be swallowed up in the Court of Law, and that the diffuse, dilatory, and expensive proceedings of the former were to be replaced by the more terse, pointed, and expeditious habitudes of the latter; or, in other words, as the Court of Chancery had drawn its origin and its practice from the Civil Law and the Supreme Court, in imitation of the King's Bench, from the Common Law, so by this re-organization of the Courts, the precepts of the Civil Law, so far as they governed the mere machinery of conducting an action in its progress, should give place to the precepts of the Common Law, and that the uniformity of proceeding which was aimed at, should be that of the Common Law, rather than of the Civil Law, because it was the former which had always guided that Court, into which the Court of Equity was now to be absorbed." Page 7 and 8.
"Such, I say, was the impression that was produced by the manner in which our Courts were re-organized, and by the accustomed clause in the Constitution, declaring the Common Law as it existed in this country in 1775, to be the law of this State. There was no express enactment in the organic law to that effect; but the impression obtained, notwithstanding the power conferred upon the Legislature to sweep away from our jurisprudence all or any part of the Common Law.
"That impression, however, is now to be removed, for it would seem to have been the intention of the Legislature, by this Code of Practice, to remove the whole Common Law mode of procedure, and to substitute in its place the practice of the Civil Law, and reversing the expected order of things, to swallow up the Supreme Court, as formerly constituted, so far at least as practice and pleading are concerned, in the Court of Chancery.
"This is the first great and leading feature in the New Code, to which our attention is to be directed, and which must be constantly borne in mind, in order to have a right understanding and just appreciation of the radical change which has been made." Pages 8 and 9.
"The changes which have been made are indeed radical and essential; but, with the exception of a few minor matters, peculiar to ourselves, nothing novel or startling has been introduced, nothing indeed that has not been tried and found to work well in this or some other country, in the present or some past period. Nothing, so far as I have been able to discover, has been lopped off, which has not been condemned by some of the most enlightened members of the profession; and nothing introduced that is calculated to impair the rights of property or to interfere with the enjoyment of liberty or the pursuit of happiness. It will add, for a while, and until we shall become acquainted with its provisions and familiar with its workings, to the labors both of the Bench and the Bar; but this will be more than compensated by the extent to which the profession will, in time, be relieved from the mere office drudgery and labor, to which, under the old system, they were condemned, and for a very inadequate remuneration. It will enable them to secure, what has for some time been difficult to obtain, a just compensation for their services, and as it will leave them at liberty to turn their attention to the principles instead of the mere practice of law, to the merits rather than to the proceedings of their cases, it must, I am persuaded, elevate the standing and enlarge the usefulness of the profession.
"Errors and omissions will doubtless be found in it. The haste [*expediency] with which the Legislature exacted the important work to be performed, seeming to expect a Code of Practice "by return mail," and a codification of the whole law "by next week," and which denied to the proposed reforms before enactment, that one examination, in or out of the Legislature, so essential to the perfection of such a work, render these things inevitable. The Commissioners would perhaps have better consulted their own reputation and the welfare of the community, by a successful resistance to this unnecessary haste in so important an undertaking. But be that as it may, time and patience will remedy the evils arising from this cause, and I cannot persuade myself but that we shall ere long--through much tribulation perhaps--enter a haven of safety and ease in the practice, where, amid our repose, we may look back with complacency upon the trials through which we have passed, and have time to wonder at the infatuation which induced us to permit for so long, the numerous ills from which we shall be happily relieved at last, and which nothing but the most inveterate habit would ever have persuaded us to endure for a moment." Pages 45, 46 and 47. [*Insertion added.]

If my Pastor friend does not yet see the documented truths outlined in "How The Church Fell From Grace" and "The Book Of The Hundreds," then I would suggest he (and others) visit the local Law Library and read "A Manual of Roman Private Law," by William W. Buckland, or "Jewish and Roman Law," Two Volumes, by Boaz Cohen, or other such works (available through The Christian Jural Society Press). The radical "legal" change which took place in 1848 - and having since been adopted by the several States - combined with a quick glance at the military flags which hang in every court room today, should be ample evidence to prove the error of any mysterious formulas being calculated to win in the current court system.

If any are still not convinced, let me quote from a basic Encyclopedic source.

"The most important, however, of the attempts at codification which have been made in the United States are those of the state of New York, which had their origin mainly in the able and persistent efforts of David Dudley Field, which he began in 1839, by a public letter on the subject addressed to Gulian C. Verplanck, then a state senator, and continued by a series of addresses to legislative committees, of articles in the newspapers, and of pamphlets. The result of this agitation was that the revised constitution of New York, adopted in 1846, had two separate provisions in relation to codification. The first directed the appointment of three other commissioners to revise the rules of practice and pleadings in courts of record. Both commissioners made a partial report on Feb. 28, 1848, containing an incomplete code of civil procedure, in such shape as to cover the principal reforms proposed in the practice of courts of record in civil cases, and this report was immediately adopted by legislature. The complete codes of civil and criminal procedure were not reported until Dec. 31, 1849, and were never adopted by the legislature, although some portion of the amendments suggested by the commissioners were gradually incorporated by legislation into the text of the original and incomplete code enacted in 1848. On April 6, 1857, the legislature created a new commission to prepare codes of all the law not covered by the reports of the practice commission, and appointed David Dudley Field, William Curtis Noyes, and Alexander W. Bradford the commissioners, for a term of five years, which was afterward extended for three years further. They reported a political code, a penal code, and a civil code. These codes have up to the present time been adopted by the legislature of New York; and indeed, although reported by committees, the legislature has always been too much occupied with special legislature of New York to give the necessary time for their consideration. The code of civil procedure, in whole or in part, has been adopted into the laws of 23 states and territories of the Union, viz.: New York, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, California, Oregon, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Washington, Montana, Idaho, Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, and Arizona." The American Cyclopedia, A Popular Dictionary of General Knowledge (1873), [Edited by George Ripley and Charles A. Dana, Vol. V, Page 8, New York: D. Appleton and Company, 549 and 551 Broadway. London : 16 Little Britain].

In conclusion, it is only through Christ Jesus, as our Lawgiver and blood sacrifice, that mankind will have standing in Law when they phone the King's Men. It matters not how your minister or pastor (or anyone else) answers their phone, or what Holy Scriptures they use in their pleadings. When the next reformation and restoration of His church begins, without an understanding of where we are today and how this fits into legal history and the Scriptures, my belief is that those who ignore the importance of doing everything Lawful in the name of Christ Jesus, and ignore the history of the legal system, will be wasting God's time in sin.

"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." John 20:31.
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Romans 8:1-9.

Milton on Christian Liberty

Many are the ministers of God, and their offices no less many. None more different than state and church government.

The main plea [of those who assert the contrary] is that of the kings of Judah.

But to this I return: that the state of religion under the Gospel is far differing from what it was under the Law. Then was the state of rigour, childhood, bondage, and works; to all which force was not unbefitting. Now is the state of grace, manhood, freedom, and faith; to all which belongs willingness and reason, not force. The Law was then written on tables of stone, and to be performed according to the letter, willingly or unwillingly; the Gospel, our new covenant, upon the heart of every believer, to be interpreted only by the sense of charity and inward persuasion. The Law had no distinct government or governors of church and commonwealth, but the priests and Levites judged in all causes, not ecclesiastical only, but civil (Deut 17:8, &c.); which under the Gospel is forbidden to all church ministers, as a thing which Christ their master in His ministry disclaimed (Luke 12:14), as a thing beneath them (1 Cor 6:4), and by many other statutes, as to them who have a peculiar and far-differing government of their own.

I have shown that the civil power neither hath right nor can do right by forcing religious things. I will now show the wrong it doth by violating the fundamental privilege of the Gospel, the new birthright of every true believer, Christian Liberty. 2 Corinthians 3:17:

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all;"

and [verse] 31:

"we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free."

It will be sufficient in this place to say no more of Christian Liberty than that it sets us free not only from the bondage of those ceremonies, but also from the forcible imposition of those circumstances, place and time in the worship of God, which though by Him commanded in the old Law, yet in respect of that verity and freedom which is evangelical, St. Paul comprehends--both kinds alike, that is to say, both ceremony and circumstance --under one and the same contemptuous name of weak and beggarly rudiments (Gal 4:3, 9, 10; Col 2:8 with 16), conformable to what our Saviour Himself taught (John 4:21, 23); Neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem. In spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship Him.

They who would seem more knowing, confess that these things are indifferent, but for that very cause by the magistrate may be commanded. As if God of His special grace in the Gospel had to this end freed us from His own commandments in these things, that our freedom should subject us to a more grievous yoke, the commandments of men! As well may the magistrate call that common or unclean which God hath cleansed; as well may he loosen that which God hath straitened or straiten that which God hath loosened, as he may enjoin these things in religion which God hath left free, and lay on that yoke which God hath taken of. For He hath not only given us this gift as a special privilege and excellence of the free Gospel above the servile Law, but strictly also hath commanded us to keep it and enjoy it. Gal 5:13: You are called to liberty. 1 Cor 7:23: Be not made the servants of men. Gal 5:1: Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free; and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Neither is this a mere command, but for the most part in these forecited places, accompanied with the very weightiest and inmost reasons of Christian religion. Romans 14:9, 10: For to this end Christ both died and rose and revived, that He might be Lord both of the dead and living. But why dost thou judge thy brother? &c. How presumest thou to be his lord, to be who only Lord, at least in these things, Christ both died and rose and lived again? We shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ. Why then dost thou not only judge, but persecute in these things for which we are to be accountable to the tribunal of Christ only, our Lord and Lawgiver? 1 Cor 7:23: Ye are bought with a price: be not made the servants of men. Some trivial price belike, and for some frivolous pretences paid in their opinion, if--bought and by Him redeemed, Who is God, from what was once the service of God--we shall be enthralled again and forced by men to what now is but the service of men! Gal 4:31, with 5:1: We are not children of the bondwoman, &c. Stand fast therefore, &c. Col 2:8: Beware lest any man spoil you, &c., after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Solid reasons whereof are continued through the whole chapter. Verse 10: Ye are complete in Him, which is the head of all principality and power. Not completed therefore, or made the more religious, by those ordinances of civil power from which Christ their head hath discharged us, blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross (verse 14). Blotting out ordinances written by God Himself, much more those so boldly written over again by men! Ordinances which were against us, that is, against our frailty, much more those which are against our conscience! Let no man therefore judge you in respect of, &c. (verse 16). Gal 4:3, &c: 3: Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, &c. to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons, &c. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son, &c. But now, &c. how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, &c. Hence it plainly appears, that if we be not free, we are not sons, but still servants unadopted; and if we turn again to those weak and beggarly rudiments, we are not free--yea, though willingly, and with a misguided conscience, we desire to be in bondage to them. How much more then, if unwillingly and against our conscience?

Ill was our condition changed from legal to evangelical,and small advantage gotten by the Gospel,, if for the spirit of adoption to freedom promised us, we receive again the spirit of bondage to fear; if our fear, which was then servile towards God only, must be now servile in religion towards men. Strange also and preposterous fear, if when and wherein it hath attained by the redemption of our Saviour to be filial only towards God, it must be now servile towards the magistrate. Who, by subjecting us to his punishment in these things, brings back into religion that law of terror and satisfaction belonging now only to civil crimes; and thereby in effect abolishes the Gospel, by establishing again the Law to a far worse yoke of servitude upon us than before. It will therefore not misbecome the meanest Christian to put in mind Christian magistrates, and so much the more freely by how much the more they desire to be thought Christian--for they will be thereby, as they ought to be in these things, the more our brethren and the less our lords--that they meddle not rashly with Christian Liberty, the birthright and outward testimony of our adoption; lest while they little think it--nay, think they do God's service--they themselves, like the sons of that bondwoman, be found persecuting them who are freeborn of the Spirit, and by a sacrilege of not the least aggravation, bereaving them of that sacred liberty which our Saviour with His own blood purchased for them." John Milton, from Of Civil Power in Ecclesiastical Causes (1659), cited in Woodhouse, Puritanism and Liberty (1965), pp.226-228.

PRAGMATISM, PRACTICALISM, HUMANISM. These words all refer to a recent philosophy, "the most recent and (philosophically speaking) fashionable 'ism' that the new century has produced, known by some as Humanism, and by others as Pragmatism" (Academy, August 4, 1906). The philosophy teaches that the whole meaning of a conception expresses itself in practical consequences, either in the shape of conduct to be recommended or experiences to be expected, if it is true. In short, "if it works, it is true." This was called practicalism by some because the test of truth is its results in practice (ultimately from the Greek "to do"; but William James, the American exponent of the philosophy, gave it the name pragmatism, from the same Greek verb, which has the same meaning as practicalism but is a trifle more euphonius. Humanism, from Latin humanus, pertaining to man, from homo, man, is applied to the philosophy because it judges truth not by abstract or theoretical principles, but simply by its practical outcome in human life. But the objection to the title humanism is that the word has already been applied to the work of the scholars of the Renaissance who revived the ideal of a perfect "human" life, on the basis of the Greek and Roman art, as contrasted with the spiritual ideal of the medieval theologians. Hence, when humanism is used for pragmatism, there is confusion. As is the case with most new words, the difference between the synonymes is not one of meaning, but of customary usage. Crabb's English Synonyms (1917), by George Crabb, A. M., pages 564 and 565.

Pragmatism

PRAGMATISM (Gr., work, action, result, end). A system which consists in proving the truth of a proposition or even of a metaphysical system by its practical results. Thus the good and the true are manifested by the useful. The Pragmatism of William James and the Humanism of Schiller differ only in name, and assert the pre-eminence of the practical over the speculative, of will over mind; they have their origin in the philosophy of Kant. The true doctrine holds the pre-eminence of the speculative over the practical. The Decalogue is not true just because it happens to work well or is the best for the individual and the society--it is true in itself. Pragmatism judges of the truth of metaphysical principles by their moral consequences--this is the topsy-turvydom of ethics. The Catholic Encyclopedic Dictionary, Third Edition (1961) [Macmillan Co., New York], page 392.

"The meaning of the word church is the same as that of 'congregation,' or 'assembly.' In this sense, there may be a good or a bad church. But the specific meaning of the word church, at the present time, is a body of worshippers, united together (generally, [*not specifically]) in one place.

The Christian Church

by E. W. Humphreys

From the time of Christ, 'church' has been a very common name, and has been used to designate the followers of Christ. For three hundred years from the time of our Saviour, there was but one Christian Church, and with the exception of a few schismatics, here and there, all of the members agreed to disagree. For no one, for a moment, would assert that all the Christian fathers held the same views in regard to what they taught of the Christian doctrine. Alexandria, in Egypt, was the place where the first great division was made to the Christian Church.

It would be useless here to follow the Christian Church through the wilderness of the dark ages. Suffice it to say, the priests saw fit to take the Scriptures away from their followers, and taught them verbally what was true and what was false in doctrine. This was the state of the church when Martin Luther, of Wittenberg, in Germany, accidentally came across a copy of the New Testament. Luther knew there was something wrong, but could not tell what. One thing he was convinced of, that the sale of indulgences, or selling the right to sin, for money, a practice very common then in the [Roman] Catholic Church, was wrong. He challenged the indulgence agent to a debate, and Luther soon had debates enough. The ground that Luther and his associates took at this time was, that no person was bound to believe any thing of the doctrines of religion, unless taught in the Bible, and that any thing taught in the Bible must be believed, Popes, Councils, or Fathers, to the contrary, not with standing. Furthermore, Luther insisted that not only the preacher, but the layman also, had a right to read and judge what the Bible taught, each individual for himself. Although, perhaps not in the same words, yet in substance, Luther taught in the sixteenth century the same right of private judgment that the fathers of the present church taught in the nineteenth century, in North Carolina, by O'Kelly, in New England by Smith and Jones, and in Kentucky by Stone, Dunlavy, Purviance, and others.

We will not trace the fluctuation of parties in the church during the following two hundred years from Luther. We will only say, it was a constant effort of the one part to give the priest the power which he had lost, and on the other to grant the right of private judgment to every man. In all the struggles of Calvin and Servetus, Henry VIII, of England, and Charles V, of Germany, Cranmer and Wolsey, and Wesley and Whitefield, and especially the Exodus of the New England Puritans--all the church movements of this time were brought on by this contest."--Rev. E. W. Humphreys, in Gospel Herald, May 23, 1863, in The Centennial of Religious Journalism (1908), pp. 183-185.

From the Christian meeting house to

the first Pagano-Christian Temple

For the first three centuries after Christ's Resurrection, the only "Church" known to His elect was the 'house church.' In 1989, Vincent Branick, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Dayton described these meeting houses:

"For the Christians, the synagogues quickly became off limits. The pagan temples involved too many unsavory associations. And the stately basilicas were centuries away. The private home on the other hand afforded a place of privacy, intimacy, and stability for the early Christian.

For about a century, the private dwelling shaped the Christians' community life, forming the environment in which Christians related to each other, providing an economic substructure for the community, a platform for missionary work, a framework for leadership and authority, and probably a definite role for women. Above all, the private home, and specifically the dining room (triclinium or diwan) provided an environment that corresponded remarkably with the Christians' earliest self-identification, reflecting Jesus' own choice of an "upper room" for His last supper, His choice of "non-sacred space" as the environment of His Work, and His insistence on familial ties among believers.

Sometime in the second half of the second century, Christians began to dedicate their homes to church assembly. The building ceased to be a residence. Modifications to the structure turned the dining room into a larger assembly hall. Other rooms assumed community functions. Although resembling a house, the building became a church. Eventually, Christians were allowed to rebuild their churches from the ground. In AD 314, a year after the Edict of Milan, the first of the basilicas appeared.

The Christians meeting in the dedicated churches and basilicas show an understanding of themselves different from that of the Christians meeting in the house churches. Leadership became concentrated in fewer hands, the hands of a special class of holy people. Church activities became stylized ritual. The building rather than the community became the temple of God. Whether environment determines ideology or ideology determines environment, the link between the two is clear when we examine the shift from the house church to the dedicated church." Vincent Branick, The House Church in the Writings of Paul (1989) [Michael Glazier Publishing Co., Wilmington, Delaware], pp. 14-15.

New Birth

"All God's children are still-born. They come spiritually dead into the world. And dead they continue till they are born again of the Holy Ghost.

Every believer has four births. A natural birth into the world; a spiritual birth into the kingdom of grace, at regeneration; a birth into glory at death; and a new birth of his body from the grave at the resurrection.

No man can remember the day of his natural birth; but most of God's people can remember the day when they were born again." Augustus Toplady, quoted from The Works of Augustus Toplady (1794) [Sprinkle Publications, Harrisburg, Virginia], page 551.

Human Nature?

At an earlier time, the Christian clergy had the discernment to know what the term "man" and "human nature" really meant, that the "born again" Christian is no longer "a human being," and that Jesus the Christ was never "a human being." William Gurnall's instructions in 1665 to his Brothers in Christ are words to be well considered:

"Thou art trained up in such high and heavenly learning as no other religion in the world can show, and therefore your lives are to bear proportion to your teaching. It was a sharp reproof to the Corinthian saints, when the apostle said, "ye walk as men," 1 Cor. 3:3; that is, men in a natural state. And he that walks thus like men, will not walk much unlike the very beasts; for man is become brutish in his understanding, and it is worse to live like a beast than to be a beast.

Surely, Christians, if you have not your name for nought, you partake of a nature higher than human. Your feet should stand where other men's heads are; you should live as far above the carnal world as grace is above nature, as heaven is above earth. Christ would never have stooped beneath angels, but to raise your hearts and lives above men. He would never have humbled Himself to take the human nature, but on a design to make us partakers of the divine; nor would He of walked on earth, but to make a way to elevate our hearts to heaven. Say not, therefore, flesh and blood cannot bear such an injury or forbear such a sensual pleasure. Either thou art more than a man, or less than a Christian. Flesh and blood never revealed the Gospel to thee, flesh and blood never received Christ; in a word, flesh and blood shall never enter into the kingdom of God." William Gurnall, The Christian in Complete Armour (1665), [The Banner of Truth Trust, Philadelphia, Penn.] Volume Second, page 575.

Anti-knowledge

"For over 20 years I thought I was working on evolution but there was not one thing I knew about it. So, for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and various groups of people, 'Can you tell me anything you know about evolution; any one thing that is true?' I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time, and eventually one person said, 'Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.' During the past few years, you have experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge." From a speech delivered by evolutionist and senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, Dr. Collin Patterson, at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, on November 5, 1981.

Marriage

"When a believer marries an unbeliever, what is it but reviving the old cruel punishment of tying the living and the dead together." Augustus Toplady, quoted from The Works of Augustus Toplady, p.550.

Issue the Thirty-fourth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

A Change of Mind, A Change Ways...

Unincorporated Associations and Religious Societies...

The Prosecutorial Authority and Power of Christ's church...

The Vigilantes of Montana, A Book Review...

Maintaining general delivery, Part Four...

The Shetar, A Introduction...

Pagan Practices, Yesterday and Today...

Bits and Pieces...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

A Change of Mind, A Change of Ways

by Randy Lee and John Joseph

"Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give." Mat. 10:8

For all of Christ's remnant, "putting on the Mind of Christ" brings a change of ways, those changed ways being the Ways of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ; not simply professing the Gospel, but repentance through living the Gospel. In this Light, we at The Christian Jural Society Press have examined our past ways (in respect to the ways we have made available The Christian Jural Society News, the various Study Materials, and Seminars to our Brothers and Sisters in Christ) and we now see that those ways are not His Ways.

That is to say, a price can not be put on the good and goods that He has freely given us, ("freely ye have received, freely give"). That which He has freely given us cost us nothing, for we came into this world with nothing and will leave with nothing. Therefore, we will no longer put a price on the things we have available.

We do not expect to be fed by miracles, as Elijah was: but will depend upon the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to incline and direct the hearts of our Brothers and Sisters to determine the worth of that which they may request from us.

We are assured in Scripture that Christ's hired servants shall have bread enough, and to spare; while we abide faithful to God and our Duty, and are in care to do our work well, we may cast all our other care upon Him; Jehovah-jireh, let the Lord provide for us and ours as He thinks fit.

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He also called: and whom He called, them He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified. What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?" Romans 8:28-32

We will go into further detail on this subject in the next two Issues of The News. In the mean time, we welcome all positive or negative letters and phone calls concerning the above. If you want us to consider your letter for publication in The News, please make a note of that in your letter.

Unincorporated Associations

and Religious Societies

The purpose of the following article is to demonstrate to "the church" that in the "eyes" of Caesar, and according to The Word of God, being unincorporated/unregistered is not sufficient to avoid the Roman Imperial State's taxing authority, though it is a beginning.

In addition, its purpose is not meant to be a criticism of the many well meaning Christian men and women who have labored for The Lord in these matters, but simply a supplemental guide for the avoidance of 'rendering unto Caesar' that which is not and should not be his.

Being the same ungodly entities, 'The FEDS,' 'The Roman Imperial State,' 'The United States,' and 'Caesar' will hereafter be referred to as 'the State.'

Believing themselves to be free from the State's taxing authority after unincorporating, many of these local churches and their pastors have been, in recent years, pulled into Federal District Court for failing to pay their "fair share." At first glance, this would seem to be a breach on the part of the State. Therefore, we must go to the source, cause and origin of the State's presumed right of action to determine whether or not there is truly a breach, i.e., is the particular church "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" --for this phrase will ultimately determine whether or not there is a tax to be had on the part of the State.

The State, when pulling these unincorporated churches into court, usually designate them to be an "unincorporated association," not "a church." An unincorporated association is defined by the State to be:

"a body or collection of persons who have united or joined together, without a charter, but upon the methods and forms used by corporations, for the prosecution of some business or common enterprise, and who are called, for convenience, by a common name." Morrissey v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 56 S. Ct. 289, 296 U.S. 344.

The important word above is "enterprise." Enterprise is defined in man's law to be:

"A business venture or undertaking." Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed.), page 531.

In conjunction with the above, we must look at the mode of operation conducted by the unincorporated 'church' to determine whether or not it is seen, in the "eyes" of the State, to be in fact "the church," or simply another one of its taxable entities subject to its jurisdiction, more commonly known as an unincorporated association/ religious society "doing business" or "engaged in an enterprise":

More importantly, we need to look at The Word of God to see what He has mandated concerning these matters, thereby showing the State to be, when proceeding lawfully, nothing more than Our Father's rod of correction for His remnant when they fall into error.

"By their fruits you will know them" is the best rule by which you can determine whether or not we're looking at the church or one of the State's taxable entities.

In short, is the subject church partaking of and feeding on the State's dunghill?:

"It has been said that equity will look through the form to ascertain the real intent of an association of individuals, and will give effect to the real purposes of the organization in order to promote fair dealing and effectuate justice."White v. Pacific Southwest Trust & Savings Bank, D.C.Cal., 9 F.2d 650.

We must always remember that, "When you play in Caesar's sandbox with Caesar's toys, you will ultimately play by Caesar's rules" (see Matthew 6:24). For as the apostle Paul said in so many words, "that which is not of the things of God through Christ Jesus, is but dung" (see Philippians, Chapter 3).

The main question we must examine (just as the State does) is: Does the subject church partake of and function according to Biblical procedure or according to the State's lex mercatoria?

Since we are looking at two diametrically opposed systems, the lines are easily drawn. On the State's side we have personal profit and private gain (modern commerce). On the Biblical side we have "there is no profit under the sun, for all is vanity and chasing after the wind" (see Ecclesiastes 2:7-17).

A clue to what determines "income" and subjection to the Commerce Clause can be seen in the following case:

"An income tax law may apply retroactively to "recent transactions" which includes the "receipt" of income during the year...." Welch v. Henry, 305 U.S. 134.
"Recent transactions" and "receipts" are the indicators and evidence of "income" and profit seeking. But unless there is a record of such, there is no evidence, and therefore nothing to base a tax upon. When keeping a record of such 'transactions," one automatically becomes an agent of the State:
"A tax statute may validly require one making payments to another to act as agent of the state and collect the income tax from the one to whom payment is made." IHC v. Wisconsin Dept. of Taxation, 322 U.S. 435.

Bank accounts, check writing, bank money orders, debt based credit, receipts, employees, salaried pastors, etc., are the record and evidence that the association is engaged in an enterprise for profit-sake.

"Where the association is organized for commercial purposes, and operated for pecuniary (monetary) profit, it is no more than a partnership, and the rights and liabilities incident to that relation attach to its members, as well between the members themselves." Chastain v. Baxter, 31 P.2d 21.

So we see that "the church," when evidencing through the "record" that it is just another religious merchant pursuing the "almighty dollar,' in the "eyes" of the State it is nothing more than a "partnership" governed by and subject to the rules of the Law Merchant:

"THE LAW MERCHANT. Although much of the present law of sales, partnerships, insurance and bankruptcy is derived from the customs and usages of the law merchant (lex mercatoria), the law of negotiable instruments was, undoubtedly, the most remarkable development of the law merchant. The Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law to this day provides that "In any case not provided for in this act the rules of the law merchant shall govern." (Section 196, N.I.L.)
"The law merchant, or mercantile law, was the comprehensive body of privately administered rules and customs enforced as law by merchants throughout the medieval commercial world, and, especially, in the Italian city-states. Each market, fair and seaport had local merchant courts where a jury of merchants would settle controversies with efficient dispatch upon the basis of mercantile custom. From Italy, the law merchant spread to England, where it gradually underwent a centralization." Teevan and Smith, Business Law (1949), vol. II, p. 329-330.

The Federal District Court, when hearing an IRS case is nothing more that the modern centralized "merchant court."

On the State's taxability of foreign associations engaged in an enterprise, the following commentaries and cases may shed additional light on the question of partnerships and associations:

"Whether a given association is called a corporation, partnership, or trust [*or church] is not the essential factor in determining the powers of a state concerning it. The real nature of the organization must be considered. The Michigan statute under consideration in this case (Comp. Laws 1915, 9071 read: 'The term 'corporation' as used in this act shall be construed to include all associations, partnership associations, and joint-stock companies having any of the powers or privileges of corporations (* foreign tax immunity) not possessed by individuals or partnerships, under whatever term or designation they may be defined or known in the state where organized.'
"There were two questions before the court: First, whether the Massachusetts legislature, in passing the statute taxing companies 'incorporated or associated under the laws of any government or state other than one of the United States,' had intended to levy the tax upon this type of English joint-stock company; and, secondly, whether Massachusetts could do this, if it had intended to do so. The Massachusetts Supreme Court decided that its legislature could tax such a company, and that it had intended to do so as a company 'associated' rather than 'incorporated.' As some members of the company were British subjects, a tax on them might violate the commercial treaty of 1815 with England, [Oliver v. Liverpool & London Life & Fire Ins. Co., 100 Mass. 531. This view was supported by Mr. Justice Bradley, of the Supreme Court, in his dissenting opinion.] and, as other members were citizens of New York, a tax on them might violate section 2, Article 4, of the Constitution. On the other hand, a tax on it would not offend the provisions of either of these instruments. Consequently, it must be conceded that the Supreme Court was deciding that the Liverpool Company was a corporation under Massachusetts law, even though Parliament did not intend to incorporate it." Stevens, Corporations (1949), pp. 30-31.

"An association in fact doing business as a legal entity (*having a common name) may be estopped to deny its own existence. Askew v. Joachim Memorial Home, 234 N.W.2d 226, 236.

When the body of the true church (the corpore') engages in profit seeking as evidenced through the use of the instruments and ways of the law merchant, it is nothing more than one of the State's taxable and floggable entities:

"Properly used, 'ultra vires' means beyond the scope of the corporate purposes and activities as agreed upon by the shareholders. As so defined and used, the ultra vires doctrine involves an application of the principles of the law of agency. Corporate acts which are illegal, prohibited by law, or against public policy are objectionable for those reasons, and because they are ultra vires, and they call for the application of the same principles that would be applied to the acts of individuals or unincorporated associations when those acts are illegal, prohibited, or contrary to public policy." Stevens, Corporations, pp. 292, 293.

By the Grace of God, we hope to cover this vital subject in further detail in upcoming Issues of The News.

The Prosecutorial Authority

and Power of Christ's church

This beginning Work is to show the Authority and Power inhering in Christ's church to correct the things afflicting it in general, and its members in particular.

This is offensive in position and we must study this carefully so as not to fool ourselves into thinking that, because we profess Christianity, every thing we do is Christian and free from our personal taint. Nothing could be further from the Truth:

"Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine [*your] own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." John 5:19, 30.

Although many believe Christ's church is not to prosecute any matter but to be weak in the eyes of the world, such is an infection of the heart by worms of fear, complacency, apathy, ignorance, and outlawry. It is to be understood throughout this section of this work that it does not encompass every possible situation one may come across, but is to be used as a tool to be adapted and fitted for use by the Good and Lawful Christian, "who has studied to show himself approved of God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed of his calling, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15.

To begin this section of this work, we will look to Christ Jesus once again to see if He exercised any prosecutorial powers at all. Let us take the example of the moneychangers selling in the Temple. He testified that He had seen our Father already do this:

"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves." Matthew 21:12-13.

Now, if Christ had carried banners or led a demonstration against the practice of the moneychangers in the Temple, what witness would He have? If Christ had merely said, "I believe this is against the law and you can't do this here," or, "I believe this is against the law and are violating my civil rights," what witness would He have? If Christ had merely paid the charge of the moneychangers, what witness would He have? If Christ wrote letters to the high priests denouncing such practices, what witness would He have? If Christ solicited signatures for a petition to human authority deriving revenue from this practice what witness would He have? If Christ filed complaints, affidavits, motions for discovery, motions for admissions, interrogatories, depositions, and other ilk, in the Roman imperial courts, what witness would he have? [Editor's note: The answer is the same for all questions.] If Christ had done any or all of the above, whose law would He have executed? To whom then would He have been faithful? It is because Christ did none of these things that His church has the standing above and outside of all codes, rules, and regulations:

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24.
"No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Luke 16:13.

Is this a prosecution executed in Law by Christ? The answer to this question is a resounding "yes." This is clearly seen from the following passages of Scripture:

"For the LORD taketh pleasure in his people: he will beautify the meek with salvation. Let the saints be joyful in glory: let them sing aloud upon their beds. Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a twoedged sword in their hand; To execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people; To bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; To execute upon them the judgment written [*past tense]: this honour have all his saints. Praise ye the LORD." Psalm 149:4-9. [Emphasis and *insertion added.]

To better appreciate the significance of this Lawful Warrant of Scripture, we must look at the word "heathen" used here to signify someone or group of persons separate and distinct from His church, or strangers. Because His church is already reconciled to Him, then those who are not reconciled to Him must be those outside of Him and His church. This then gives us the reason for what He did, and the reason for executing His Law:

"We are confounded, because we have heard reproach: shame hath covered our faces: for strangers are come into the sanctuaries of the LORD's house." Jeremiah 51:51.

There is no other way to explain this use of the word. We see this in the following text aid:

1471. GOY. "It is originates from gewah (1465). It means person, inhabitant, populace, people, tribe, nation; the non-Israeli [*non-Christian or one who is not in the Body of Christ. (See Brother Warren Mark's Sermon on who True Israel is in the thirty-second issue of the Christian Jural Society News.)] or heathen peoples. It is a general word used to refer to nations at large, particularly Gentiles (as distinguished from Jews). Scholars now believe that the basic idea of goy is a defined group of people or a large segment of a given body which is defined by context. The pl. form (goyim) is often used to refer to the pagan nations which surrounded Israel [*Christ's church]. They were defined politically, ethnically, and territorially (Gen 10:5). In its general sense the term could even be applied to the descendants of Abraham (Gen 12:2; 17:20; 21:18). Moses called Israel by that word (Ex 33:13; Deut 4:6, 7). Israel was a nation among other nations in the time of Moses, just as she was in Joshua's time (Josh 31:36). The pejorative sense includes uncircumcised nations (Jer 9:26). Goyim were wicked (Deut 9:4, 5), abominable (Deut 18:9; 2 Chr 33:2), and idolatrous (2 Kgs 17:29). God, through Moses and the prophets, warned the Israelites not to imitate the other nations (Deut 32:28; Is 1:4; Mal 3:9). God planned to save them through the Messiah (Is 2:2ff; 11:10; 42:6; 60:10ff). Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study, Old Testament (1994), pp. 2307-2308 [*insert added].

The Warrant is served and executed by His church on the heathen, those who have incurred the wrath of God by being under the punishment of sin having not repented but remaining dead in their sins. See John 8:24.

We see Christ doing this when He declares the Law, "It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves." This is called a declaration in-Law. We are sure there must have been some objection, but on what grounds could one be raised other than by the Law of God? This is a part of the two-edged sword David wrote about in Psalms. We will of necessity return to this point.

The key is the doing of the act Lawfully--the same reason Christ did it, "to honour Him who sent Me"--and not for revenge. So we must then learn from the Scripture what it is we are to do. Again, David writes,

"Teach me to do thy will." Psalm 143:10.

This is the major difference between the religious corporation and Christ's church: Christ's church is engaged in being alive by doing His Will, while the religious corporation is dead and cannot do in any act whatsoever. (When did you see a piece of paper do any thing?) There are so many other verses of like import that to list them here would make this treatment larger than life.

Archibald Sympson said of this verse:

"He saith not, Teach me to know thy will, but to do thy will. God teaches us in three ways. First, by His Word. Secondly, He illuminateth our minds by the Spirit. Thirdly, He imprinteth it in our hearts, and maketh us obedient to the same; for the servant who knoweth the will of his master, and doeth it not, shall be beaten with many stripes. Luke xii. 47." Charles Haddon Spurgeon, A Treasury of David, vol. III, p. 350.

Thomas Shepard remarked on the same passage of Scripture:

"The Lord doth no sooner call his people to Himself, but as soon as ever He hath thus crowned them with these glorious privileges, and given them any sense and feeling of them, then they immediately cry out, O Lord, what shall I now do for thee? How shall I now live to thee? They know now that they are no more their own, but His; and therefore should now live to Him."
"It is true indeed, obedience to the Law is not required of us now as it was of Adam; it was required of him as a condition antecedent to life, but of those that be in Christ it is required only as a duty consequent to life, or as a rule of life, that seeing He hath purchased our lives in redemption, and actually given us life in vocation and sanctification, we should now live unto Him, in all thankful and fruitful obedience, according to His Will revealed in the moral law. It is a vain thing to imagine that our obedience is to have no other rule but the Spirit, without an attendance to the Law: the Spirit is indeed the efficient cause of our obedience, and hence we are said to be "led by the Spirit" (Rom viii. 14); but it is not properly the rule of our obedience, but the Will of God revealed in His Word, especially in the Law, is the rule; the Spirit is the wind that drives us in our obedience; the Law is our compass, according to which it steers our course for us: the Spirit and the Law, the wind and the compass, can stand well together. "Teach me to do thy will; for thou art my God" (there is David's rule, viz., God's Will revealed); "Thy Spirit is good" (there is David's wind, that enabled him to steer his course according to it). The Spirit of life doth free us from the law of sin and death; but not from the holy, and pure, and good, and righteous Law of God." Charles Haddon Spurgeon, A Treasury of David, vol. III, p. 350.

We can see now the impotence of those who preach and practice the "we live under grace, not under Law" heresy. They know the will of God but do not execute it for "they are not under the Law but under grace." Because they believe they are not under Law they have no mandate, commandment, precept, judgment, statute or ordinance of God to execute. This is the condition of bastards. It is this heresy, in particular, that has caused the falling away, apostasy, spoken of by Brother Paul in his second letter to the church at Thessalonica. It is the same apostasy of the Pharisees--"lip service" but no execution of the Law in Truth.

This is such a gross mis-application of the Word written in Romans by Brother Paul, and certainly flies in the face of what he did--the Will of God. Brother Paul made a significant distinction in writing to the Romans which is overlooked by those who live under this detrimental and foolish doctrine:

"For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin [*redeemed by the Blood of Christ], ye became the servants of righteousness." Rom. 6:14-18. [Emphasis and insertion added.]

Brother Paul poses the question plainly, "Shall we sin because we are under grace?" And his answer is plainly, "God forbid." The central issue here is two-fold: One, to what law is Paul referring; and Two, what is grace.

Let us attack the first misconception. Brother Paul is referring plainly to the law of condemnation for sin--that law which punishes sin. This is seen in the above mentioned text at the end, "made free from sin (not the Law)," and it is seen again later when he writes to us:

"Was then that which is good [*God's moral Law] made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful." Romans 7:13.

Brother Paul here is not pleading any freedom from the Law declaring sin; but he is pleading that once he has come to Christ, he is free from the condemnation and punishment of sin by the Law--and not the Law declaring sin. Sin is still sin--that has never changed, because God has never changed. Notice in his question he asks "Has the moral Law become dead and of no effect as it relates to me?" And notice how he answers it: "God forbid." This is how Good and Lawful Christians are not under the dominion of sin. If one is free from the Law declaring sin, then how does one know what sin is, but by that Law declaring it? So we see then, that consistency is thus maintained by Brother Paul with our Lord:

"Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men." Matthew 5:13.
"Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another." Mark 9:50.

The other aspect is what "grace" is. And to find out what this means, we must go to our text aids:

5485. CHARIS. "has various uses, (a) objective, that which bestows or occasions pleasure, delight, or causes favorable regard; it is applied, e.g., to beauty, or gracefulness of person, Luke 2:40; act, 2 Cor. 8:6, or speech, Luke 4:22, RV, "words of grace" (KJV, "gracious words"); Col. 4:6; (b) subjective, (1) on the part of the bestower, the friendly disposition from which the kindly act proceeds, graciousness, loving-kindness, goodwill generally, e.g., Acts 7:10; especially with reference to the divine favor or "grace," e.g., Acts 14:26; in this respect there is stress on its freeness and universality, its spontaneous character, as in the case of God's redemptive mercy, and the pleasure or joy He designs for the recipient; thus it is set in contrast with debt, Rom. 4:4, 16, with works, 11:6, and with law, John 1:17; see also, e.g., Rom. 6:14, 15; Gal. 5:4; (2) on the part of the receiver, a sense of the favor bestowed, a feeling of gratitude, e.g., Rom. 6:17 ("thanks"); in this respect it sometimes signifies "to be thankful," e.g., Luke 17:9 ("doth he thank the servant?" lit., "hath he thanks to"); 1 Tim. 1:12; (c) in another objective sense, the effect of "grace," the spiritual state of those who have experienced its exercise, whether (1) a state of "grace," e.g., Rom. 5:2; 1 Pet. 5:12; 2 Pet. 3:18, or (2) a proof thereof in practical effects, deeds of "grace," e.g., 1 Cor. 16:3, RV, "bounty" (KJV, "liberality"); 2 Cor. 8:6, 19 (in 2 Cor. 9:8 it means the sum of earthly blessings); the power and equipment for ministry, e.g., Rom. 1:5; 12:6; 15:15; 1 Cor. 3:10; Gal. 2:9; Eph. 3:2, 7. To be in favor with is to find "grace" with, e.g., Acts 2:47; hence it appears in this sense at the beginning and the end of several epistles, where the writer desires "grace" from God for the readers, e.g., Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; in this respect it is connected with the imperative mood of the word chairo, "to rejoice," a mode of greeting among Greeks, e.g., Acts 15:23; Jas. 1:1 (marg.); 2 John 10, 11, RV, "greeting" (KJV, "God speed"). The fact that "grace" is received both from God the Father, 2 Cor. 1:12, and from Christ, Gal. 1:6; Rom. 5:15 (where both are mentioned), is a testimony to the deity of Christ. See also 2 Thess. 1:12, where the phrase "according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ" is to be taken with each of the preceding clauses, "in you," "and ye in Him." In Jas. 4:6, "But He giveth more grace" (Greek, "a greater grace," RV, marg.), the statement is to be taken in connection with the preceding verse, which contains two remonstrating, rhetorical questions, "Think ye that the Scripture speaketh in vain?" and "Doth the Spirit (the Holy Spirit) which He made to dwell in us long unto envying?" (see the RV). The implied answer to each is "it cannot be so." Accordingly, if those who are acting so flagrantly, as if it were so, will listen to the Scripture instead of letting it speak in vain, and will act so that the Holy Spirit may have His way within, God will give even "a greater grace," namely, all that follows from humbleness and from turning away from the world. See BENEFIT, BOUNTY, LIBERALITY, THANK. Note: The corresponding verb charitoo, "to endue with divine favor or grace," is used in Luke 1:28, "highly favored" (marg., "endued with grace") and Eph. 1:6, KJV, "hath made accepted"; RV, "freely bestowed" (marg., "enduced.")." W. E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, vol. II, p. 169.
GRACE. "This word is understood in several senses: for beauty, graceful form and agreeableness of person, Prov. 1:9; 3:22. For favor, friendship, kindness, Gen. 6:8; 18:3; Rom. 11:6; 2 Tim. 1:9. For pardon, mercy, undeserved remission of offenses Eph. 2:5; Col. 1:6. For certain gifts of God, which he bestows freely, when, where, and on whom, he pleases; such are the gifts of miracles, prophecy, languages, etc., Rom. 15:15; 1 Cor. 15:10 Eph. 3:8, etc. For the Gospel dispensation, in contradistinction to that of the law Rom. 6:14; 1 Peter 5:12. For a liberal and charitable disposition, 2 Cor. 8:7. For eternal life, or final salvation, 1 Peter 1:13. In theological language grace also signifies Divine influence upon the soul; and it derives the name from this being the effect of the great grace or favor of God to mankind. Austin defines inward actual grace to be the inspiration of love, which prompts us to practice according to what we know, out of a religious affection and compliance. He says, likewise, that the grace of God is the blessing of God's sweet influence, whereby we are induced to take pleasure in that which he commands, to desire and to love it; and that if God does not prevent us with this blessing, what he commands, not only is not perfected, but is not so much as begun in us. Without the inward grace of Jesus Christ, man is not able to do the least thing that is good. He stands in name of this grace to begin, continue, and finish all the good a does, or rather, which God does in him and with him, by his grace. This grace is free; it is not due to us: if it were due to us, it would be no more grace; it would be a debt Rom. 11, 6; it is in its nature an assistance so powerful and efficacious, that it surmounts the obstinacy of the most rebellious human heart, without destroying human liberty. There is no subject on which Christian doctors have written so largely, as on the several particulars relating to the grace of God. The difficulty consists in reconciling human liberty with the operation of Divine grace; the concurrence of man with the influence and assistance of the Almighty. And who is able to set up an accurate boundary between day's two things? Who can pretend to know how far the privileges of grace extend over the heart of man, and what that man's liberty exactly is, who is prevented, enlightened, moved, an attracted by grace?" Watson's Bible Dictionary (1832), p. 424.

So we see then that "grace" is Divine Favour (not a man's or any man's favour) extended to those who have come to the knowledge of Christ, by heeding His call to repent from sin declared by the Law:

"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Galatians 3:24-27.

We might equate it to a "pardon," "forgiveness" and words of similar import. The point here is that one cannot be a faithful brother or son by breaking the Law in our Father's house declaring sin, and maintain that a pardon extended once will always be available:

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Galatians 6:7.
"But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;" Romans 2:8-9.

Giles' commentary in 1905 on the Spiritual World further clarifies this point:

"The Lord has so formed man that he is capable of receiving delight from everything around him. His whole form is a combination of organs or senses through which the material world comes to him and brings him delight. But in order to accomplish this end, the nicest order and adjustment of man's physical organism to the world without and to the world within him, is necessary, and must be constantly maintained. Any derangement of that order must necessarily defeat the end for which it was instituted. So long as the true order and exact relations are maintained, we are rewarded for every activity with delight. Every thing we hear, or see, or smell, or taste, or touch, gives pleasure. Every one who is in perfect physical health is physically happy. He has no sense of pain, and can have none. So long as he obeys the laws of physical life, there is no way in which pain can possibly reach him. All his delights are the rewards he receives for his works--for his obedience to the laws of his life. The reward flows from the obedience. It is not so much for doing right, as in doing right.
But if he violates this order, and disobeys these laws of his life, he suffers for it. He is punished. If he eats or drinks too much or too little, he violates a law of his life, and the penalty grows out of or flows from the violation of the law, in the same manner that the reward is the effect of his obedience. The pleasure and the pain are inseparably linked with the action. There is nothing arbitrary or uncertain in either case. The results in both arise from the same principle, and in their origin, intention, and effect, are both good. Man is drawn to orderly action by the pleasure, and deterred from evil by the punishment; and both the reward and the punishment are administered according to the work, whether it be good or bad. The pain, which is the punishment for violating a physical law, does not come from without any more than the pleasure. It is not annexed to it, but flows from it; it is inherent in it. And the punishment consists in pain, in feebleness; in being deprived of all the delights of health.
Now man, viewed as a spiritual being, is as really a man, an organized human form, as he is a material being; and all his enjoyments and sufferings flow from the orderly or disorderly action of these forms, in the same way, relatively, that his bodily sufferings and delights flow from the abuse or orderly use of his physical organism. This spiritual organism, as we have shewn in former lectures, is as variously and nicely related to all spiritual objects and forces as his material body is to this world; and its modes or order of action are laws of spiritual life. When these spiritual laws are obeyed, or we act according to the order and constitution given to man by the Lord, happiness, and happiness only, flows from the obedience. When they are violated, pain follows, and the duration and degree of the violation of the spiritual law. The pleasure and pain are not affixed arbitrarily; they both flow from the action of the same law, under different circumstances, and one is as inevitable as the other.
But we are not left to mere assumption or analogy on this subject. We know from experience that it is so, even in this [*temporal] world. Every one knows that he is always happy when he feels kindly and thinks truly, and endeavours to act right towards all others. The love of others as surely brings happiness with it as heat brings warmth. In the same manner hatred, or the indulgence of any evil passion, just as inevitably brings pain. No one can do a wrong action and escape the punishment. He may, indeed, escape the punishment which man has annexed to it; but he cannot escape the penalty of the spiritual law. A man may commit murder and never be detected. But can he avoid the consciousness of his crime? He may wash the stains of blood from his hands, but can he wash it from his soul? Can he forget? Whither can he flee from himself? What darkness can hide him? What hand shield him from the fiery stings and biting strokes of guilt? The real penalty, as you see, cannot be avoided. The laws of natural and spiritual life are the same in principle, and the rewards and punishments are administered in the same way. The penalty is inherent in the act, and flows from the act. And it cannot in any way be separated from it.
But this is not only true of that which is felt as punishment immediately, but of all the consequences which flow from it. Every thing we do, whether evil or good, reacts upon us. Good causes a greater good, and evil results in some form of punishment. Kindness towards others begets kindness in others towards us. A thoroughly honest and good man soon find himself surrounded with friends. The principle is seen in the great outward changes and facilities for business and pleasure that we possess at the present time. As soon as men began to turn their thoughts and affections to something useful--to mechanical inventions-- what a change it soon wrought in all our relations to outward things! How soon they began to react upon us for our good in a thousand different ways!
In the same manner, the evil passions and deeds of men have reacted upon them in some form of punishment. The thief and robber build their own prison, and shut themselves up in it. The outrages of evil men upon others render their confinement necessary to the general welfare, and thus the whole community stands arrayed against the evil. When a man of violent and vindictive passions gives vent to them in words and deeds of violence against other men, he soon calls down upon himself curses and blows, and even death. These are illustrations of the general principle that the life of every one reacts upon him either as reward or punishment, according to his deeds, so that it is strictly true that punishment flows from the evil, even when it seems to come from others. Giles, The Spiritual World (1905), pp. 136-140.

With our own children, we dis-inherit them when they are recalcitrant and rebellious to the law of our house. How much more so shall we be if we obey not the Law of our Father in His House?

"Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?" Romans 11:18-24.

Brother Paul concludes with this statement showing the true context of his earlier statements:

"Wherefore ye must needs be subject [*to God's Law], not only for wrath [*against sin], but also for conscience sake." Romans 13:5.

So we conclude that the doctrine of living under grace and not under law must be taken in its proper context, and not extended by natural reason to absurdity so as to engage in inconsistency, unbelief, and outright lie.

The Good and Lawful Christian must never use God's Law for personal revenge against either the un-godly or another brother. Personal revenge is not a Christian quality and God will not deliver your enemies into your hands for your revenge sake. Let us look at this term and two others, vindicate and avenge. For as we will see God vindicates and avenges the blood of his saints:

"AVENGE, REVENGE, VINDICATE, all spring from the same source, namely, the Latin vindico, justice, signifying to pronounce justice or put justice in force.
The idea common to all these terms is that of taking up some one's cause. To avenge is to punish in behalf of another; to revenge is to punish for one's self; to vindicate is to defend another. The wrongs of a person are avenged or revenged; his rights are vindicated. The act of avenging, though attended with the infliction of pain, is oftentimes an act of humanity, and always an act of justice; none are the sufferers but such as merit it for their oppression; while those are benefited who are dependent for support: this is the God Himself, who always avenges the oppressed who look up to Him for support; and it ought to be the act of all his creatures who are invested with the power of punishing offenders and protecting the helpless. Revenge is the basest of all actions, and the spirit of revenge the most diametrically opposed to the Christian principles of forgiving injuries and returning good for evil; it is gratified only with inflicting pain without any prospect of advantage. Vindication is an act of generosity and humanity; it is the production of good without the infliction of pain: the claims of the widow and orphan call for vindication from those who have the time, talent, or ability to take their cause into their own hands: England can boast of many notable vindicators of the rights of humanity, not excepting those which concern the brute creation.
'The day shall come, that great avenging day,
When Troy's proud glories in the dust shall lay.' --Pope.
'By a continued series of loose, though apparently trivial gratifications, the heart is often as thoroughly corrupted, as by the commission of any one of those enormous crimes which spring from great ambition or great revenge.'--Blair.
'Injured or oppressed by the world, the good man looks up to a Judge who will vindicate his cause.'--Blair." Crabbe's English Synonyms (1904), pp. 120-121. [Emphasis added.]

This then keeps the Good and Lawful Christian in Truth, under the Coverture of God our Father "whose hand is not shortened that it cannot save."

"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us [*justify or vindicate--see "yasha'" next]. Isaiah 33:22.

Examining the last word above, we see this is, in deed, how God operates:

3467. YASHA. "A primitive root; properly, to be open, wide or free, i.e. (by implication) to be safe; causatively, to free or succor: --X at all, avenging, defend, deliver(-er), help, preserve, rescue, be safe, bring (having) salvation, save(-iour), get victory." Strong's Hebrew Chaldee Dictionary, p. 53.
3467. YASHA`. "Originally this root was believed to mean 'to be open, wide or free.' It is the opposite of tsarar (6887), to cramp. In other words, when one has plenty of room in which to move, he feels safe and secure. Yasha' means, therefore, to be delivered, saved; to get help; to deliver; give victory; to help; to take vengeance; to preserve (Judg 10:13; Jer 31:7). The ASV has 'rescue,' 'defend cause.' The RSV uses the word 'savior.' It is noteworthy that the personal name of our Saviour, Jesus, is derived from this root (see Matt 1:21). Also, in the NT, when the crowds cried out to Jesus at His triumphal entry, they used the word 'Hosanna' (Matt 21:9), which is directly traceable to this verb in the O.T. At first, yasha pointed to a physical deliverance from very real enemies or catastrophes. Later, 'save' developed a theological meaning. God is concerned about our physical well-being, our emotional status, and the salvation of our souls. God has the ability to save us from any thing which would harm us. Salvation is God's love in action. There is none outside of Him. Isaiah (49:6; 52:10) hints at an everlasting salvation which was coming. Some like Simeon (Luke 2:29, 30) and those who were like Anna (Luke 2:38), were waiting for it." Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study, Old Testament (1994), p. 2324.

God's Law is for three purposes: One, to Glorify Him by Glorifying the Son; Two, glorify the church in Christ; Three, for the use of the Body of Believers, but never for private purposes--purposes separate from the Word of God revealed in Christ Jesus our Lord. This is evident from the following passages of Scripture:

"That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent Him." John 5:23. [Emphasis added.]
"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." Matthew 5:16.

Only pagans, citizens, infidels, pharisees, lawyers, the heathen, and other anti-Semites ("he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." Romans 2:29.) go to civil law for revenge to glorify themselves, "I want - I want - for me...for me" is the cry; but,

"He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh His glory that sent Him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him." John 7:18.

Self-righteousness is for the private civilian pagans and heathens:

PAGAN. heathen. XIV--L. paganus rustic, peasant, citizen, civilian; eccl.) (Christian and Jewish, f. pagus (rural) district, the country, orig. landmark fixed in the earth, [*641] f. *pag-, p g-, as in pangere fix, parallel to *pak- (see PACT); see -AN. The sense 'heathen' (Tertullian) of paganus derived from that of 'civilian' (Tacitus), the Christians calling themselves enrolled soldiers of Christ (members of his militant church) and regarding non-Christians as not of the army so enrolled. Represented earlier (XIII-XVI) by paien, payen--OF. paien (mod. paien)=Pr. paien, pagan, Sp., It. pagano; cf. PAYNIM. Hence paganISM. XV. Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966), pp. 640-641.
CIVILIAN. "One who is skilled or versed in the civil law. A doctor, professor, or student of the civil law. Also a private citizen, as distinguished from such as belong to the army and navy or the church." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957), p. 313.
PRIVATE. "Affecting or belonging to private individuals, as distinct from the public [*Christ's church] generally. Not official; not clothed with office [*of Christ]." People v. Powell, 280 Mich. 699, 274 N.W. 372, 373, 111 A.L.R. 721; Black's Law Dict. (4th ed. 1957), p. 1358. [Emphasis added.]

We cannot stress the importance of this enough. The Prosecutorial Authority and Power of Christ's church is not inherent in the single Good and Lawful Christian, but inherent in the Body of Christ--His church:

"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." Romans 12:19.

This is completely separate and distinct from the ways of the world constructed by the commercial "wealth gospel" of Kant, Hegel, Darwin, Spencer, Lincoln, Lieber, Beecher, Grant, Sherman, Holmes, Hughes, Cardozo, Black, Frankfurter, Marshall, Blackmun, et al.:

"We cannot however forget that it was Hegel, the last of the great ratioalists, who maintained that through law a human being attains the dignity of a person whose attribute is expressed by property." Fowler, New Philosophies of Law, 27 Harv. L.R. 718, 727.

Only pagans, citizens, infidels, pharisees, persons, lawyers, the heathen, and other anti-Semites go to law for revenge and private enrichment beyond their wildest animal lusts--because being of the world means a man is measured by his wealth here on earth. This is why Brother Paul chided those who went to law in his letter to the Corinthians--they were behaving exactly as the heathen did, and do today. What witness of Christ is there in such Law-less behaviour? Surely we should not even consider going to Law without first consulting the Word of God and seeking what He would have us do to bring glory to Him. Is He glorified by the use of a foreign law for your own aggrandizement, enrichment, or lust? Is He honoured by you using Beelzebul? Clearly the answer to both questions, according to His Word, is no. Therefore, the Good and Lawful Christian cannot use such abominations:

"Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. Psalm 1:1-2.

What then is our remedy? Plainly none. In and of ourselves we deserve none and can create no law founded in Truth giving us our remedy. But God be thanked and praised with all our being, that being benevolent to us by extending His Grace to us, we have remedy by, in and through the Judgment of His Son Christ Jesus, Who is Blessed for ever and ever, Amen; and, Who has authorized His church to execute the same:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on Me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father." John 14:12. [Emphasis added.]

We also refer you to the top of this section beginning with Psalm 149:9. So we must now set our eyes on the mark:

"But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." Matthew 6:33.

Let us then explore how we use God's Law to glorify Him, for this cause are we come into this world, just the same as Christ Jesus witnessed before Pilate:

"Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was [*were] I [*we] born, and for this cause came I [*we] into the world, that I [*we] should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice." John 18:37. [Emphasis and *Insertions added].

For it is written,

"The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master." Luke 6:40.

Before we can invoke God's Law, we must be in and full of Truth, not just in word; but in thoughts and in deed. It is written,

"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." Matthew 7:16-20.

Therefore, we must have a concept of what is Truth, and be able to distinguish it from a lie. This is the only way to bear witness to it.

TRUTH. "There are three conceptions as to what constitutes "truth": Agreement of thought and reality; eventual verification; and consistency of thought with itself." Memphis Telephone Co. v. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co., C.C.A.Tenn., 231 F. 835, 842. Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 1685. [Christ has manifested all three requirements.]

Next, we must see how God uses His Law and the way He uses it. It is His intent manifested in His Law which is critical, for it does not allow us private revenge. We must be as careful as He is in paying scrupulous attention to details. If we do not do this, we deserve a judgment adverse to us, which tells us we have not "studied to show ourselves approved of God.rightly dividing the word of Truth." Let us look at Scripture and see how this is done, for we will see that God's Law expresses Who He is and how He is our Buckler and Shield:

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrews 4:12.
"I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings." Jeremiah 17:10.

God's Law is invoked to discern the thoughts and intents of our hearts (see Psalm 44:20-21; Psalm 139:1-2; Psalm 17:1-7), and the heart of the other person. This is His intent. In His Court, He is the Trial Judge Who "gives to every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings." This accords fully with Isaiah 33:22 and furthers His Government in accordance with Isaiah 9:6-7. In all cases in which His Law is used, the fixed yardstick being used is God's Law, not just to measure the adversary, but to measure us. God blesses at all times the Good and Lawful Christian who walks continually with Him, glorifying Him in all things:

"For mine eyes are upon all their ways: they are not hid from my face, neither is their iniquity hid from mine eyes." Jeremiah 16:17.
"There is no darkness, nor shadow of death, where the workers of iniquity may hide themselves." Job 34:22.

Next month, we will examine the ways in which one sets the the Record; the Ecclesiastical Court sitting as a Grand Jury; the Great Roll; Witnesses; and the Prosecutorial Powers involved in Trespass, Case, Trover, Waste, etc.

God willing, we hope to have available soon a pamphlet and tape series that will go into further detail to clarify the points of Christian Duty involved.

The Vigilantes of Montana

A Book Review

by Philip Randolph

The official title of this 1866 true story, consisting of 269 pages and being the first book ever published in Montana, is:

---------------v--------------

The Vigilantes of Montana

Popular Justice

in the Rocky Mountains

Being a Correct and Impartial Narrative of the Chase, Trial, Capture, and Execution of Henry Plummer's Road Agent Band, Together with Accounts of the Lives and Crimes of Many of the Robbers and Desperadoes, the Whole Being Interspersed with Sketches of Life in the Mining Camps of the "Far West"; forming the only reliable work on the subject ever offered to the public.

by Prof. Thos. J. Dimsdale

---------------v---------------

For background purposes, we first need to view some important truths in regard to vigilance and our Christian duty:

"Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:" 1 Peter 5: 8
Vigil - wakeful, watchful. Vigilo - to be awake, keep awake, watch. The Classic Latin Dictionary (1926, 1931), pp. 618, 619.

Wakeful, Watchful, Vigilant.
"We may be wakeful without being watchful; but we cannot be watchful without being wakeful. Wakefulness is an affair of the body, and depends upon the temperament; watchfulness is an affair of the will, and depends upon the determination: some persons are more wakeful than they wish to be; few are as watchful as they ought to be. Vigilance, from the Latin vigil, expresses a high degree of watchfulness: a sentinel is watchful who on ordinary occasions keeps good watch: but it is necessary for him, on extraordinary occasions, to be vigilant in order to detect whatever may pass. We are watchful only in the proper sense of watching; but we may be vigilant in detecting moral as well as natural evils." Crabb's English Synonyms (1916, 1956), p. 705.

Vigilantibus, et non dormientibus serrat lex. -- The law aids the vigilant, but not those who slumber. The Self-Pronouncing Law Dict. (1948), p. 870.

"Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober. For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night. But, let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation." 1Thess. 5: 6-8.

---------------v---------------

The author, Thomas Dimsdale, arrived in the Montana territory in the year of our Lord Christ Jesus eighteen hundred sixty-three by way of Canada and England. He is described in the Foreword as "a gentle, kind-hearted Christian man." His account of Good and Lawful Christian Men battling the forces of darkness are a vivid reminder of the "old paths" that await the use of the Children of God. The following excerpts from his book clearly indicate that, "there is no new thing under the sun."

"Under these circumstances, it becomes an absolute necessity that good, law-loving, and order-sustaining men should unite for mutual protection and for the salvation of the community. Being united, they must act in harmony, repress disorder, punish crime, and prevent outrage, or their organization would be a failure from the start, and society would collapse in the throes of anarchy. None but extreme penalties inflicted with promptitude are of any avail to quell the spirit of the desperadoes with whom they have to contend; considerable numbers are required to cope successfully with the gangs of murderers, desperadoes, and robbers who infest mining countries, and who, though faithful to no other bond, yet all league willingly against the law. Secret they must be, in council and membership, or they will remain nearly useless for the detection of crime, in a country where equal facilities for the transmission of intelligence are at the command of the criminal and the judiciary; and an organization on this footing is a Vigilance Committee."

"In the case of the Vigilantes of Montana, it must be also remembered that the Sheriff himself was the leader of the Road Agents, and his deputies were the prominent members of the band."

"The marvelous riches of the great Alder Gulch attracted crowds from all the West, and afterward from the East, also; among whom were many diseased with crime to such an extent that for their cure the only available prescription was a stout cord and a good drop."

"The body of the slaughtered young man lay frozen, stiff and stark, among the sage brush, whither it had been dragged, unseen of man; but the eye of Omniscience rested on the blood-stained corpse, and the fiat of the Eternal Judge ordered the wildbird of the mountains to point out the spot, and, by a miracle, to reveal the crime. It was the finger of God that indicated the scene of the assassination, and it was His will stirring in the hearts of the honest and indignant gazers on the ghastly remains of Tbalt that organized the party which, though not then formally enrolled as a Vigilance Committee, was the nucleus and embryo of the order - the germ from which sprang that goodly tree, under the shadow of whose wide-spreading branches the citizens of Montana can lie down and sleep in peace."

"The reasons why the organization was so generally approved, and so numerously and powerfully supported, were such as appealed to the sympathies of all men who had anything to lose, or who thought their lives safer under the dominion of a body which, upon the whole, it must be admitted, has from the first acted with a wisdom, a justice, and a vigor never surpassed on this continent, and rarely, if ever, equalled."

The Vigilance Committees of old, as evidenced in this book, dealt with the same problem that exists today--rampant lawlessness. Where once the rope was the method used, today the dual-edged Sword of the Word--the Law of God--is ready in the substance of Lawful process for Christ's watchful and vigilant church to wield toward a similar end.

"Fiat justitia ruat coelum." -- Let justice be done though the heavens fall asunder.
"Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong." 1 Corinthians 16:13.
"Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is. For the Son of man is a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch. Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning: Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch." Mark 13:33-37.

Maintaining general delivery

Part Four

Joyous News from Texas

by Randy Lee

In the ongoing effort of maintaining general delivery by speaking to the heart of those in The Postal Service who, at times, act out of ignorance of their duty to Christendom, we find that not all of their hearts are hardened.

Evidence of this is beginning to show its face, through the Grace of God, in places that one would least expect it. Texas, of all places!!

Texas, which in recent times, has been known for its hard line against those seeking Liberty in Christ, is beginning to show signs of a softening in many area of the bureaucracy.

Case in point: the series of letters below.

In the first two letters, the names and locations have been changed for discretionary purposes. Shirley Ann's letter at the bottom is intact as I received it. You can write to her for fellowship on these matters if you so choose.

Here we have, once again, a Postal Inspector interceding on behalf of a Postmaster in an effort to deny general delivery through the determination of whether or not the Patron is who he says he is.

In August I prepared the response letter for a Brother that had previously abated the Postmaster without success.

In an effort to clearly draw the line in the sand between the commercial aspect of the Postal Inspector and his U.S. Postal Service, and that of non-commercial general delivery, we see that the answer to the Inspector's letter cannot be directed to him, but instead to the Postmaster on her non-commercial side under The Post Office Department. To do otherwise is to join with and partake of the benefits offered by the commercial side, thereby bringing you under that side's codes, rules and regulations. That is not where you want to be!!

If you have any questions call 818-347-7080.

United States Postal Service
July 31, 1998

John R. Barnes
General Delivery
Kemp, TX 75142

Dear Mr. Barnes:

I have been advised by the Kemp, Texas Postmaster about your request to have mail delivered to you through General Delivery.

I have attached a copy of the U.S. Postal Service Domestic Mail Manual Section D930, titled General Delivery and Firm Holdouts. The Domestic Mail Manual dictates the rules and regulations that must be followed concerning various Postal topics including the proper delivery of "General Delivery mail."

General Delivery mail is a service provided as a temporary means of delivery. One of the requirements of General Delivery mail is the presentment of suitable personal identification. This is required so that your mail is protected against delivery to unauthorized persons.

Please contact me so we may discuss your allegation of non-delivery and any other Postal question you may have. I may be reached at (214)- - - - - - - or by mail at P.O. Box - - - - - -, Dallas, TX 75222-4- - -..

Respectfully, R. J. Grant

R. J. Grant
Postal Inspector
P. O. Box - - - - - -
Dallas, TX 75222-4- - -

(Response Letter)

From:

John Robert: Barnes
to be called for in general delivery
Kemp, Texas

On the tenth day of the eighth month
in the Nineteen hundred ninety-eighth year
of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ

To:
Postmaster Helga Raymond
Dallas, Texas

Greetings in the Name of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ.

Since R. J. Grant of THE UNITED STATES INSPECTION SERVICE is an employee of that modern commercial creation, I am instead writing to you and address you here in your capacity as the postmaster in Dallas under The Postmaster General in his capacity under The Post Office Department. I have also sent copies of this writing to R. J. Grant and Postmaster General William Henderson, as due notice.

After having called my First-Class mail Matter forth from the general delivery section at The Post Office Department with a writing handed to me marked July 31, 1998 from R. J. Grant of THE UNITED STATES POSTAL INSPECTION SERVICE,' with a copy of the (1/98) version of D930 (see attached), I was deeply disturbed by its contents. I recognized in his writing that he expressed many presumptions and statements in its contents that are based on facts not in evidence.

These erroneous presumptions on his part are as follows:

1. That I am a customer of The Postal Service.

2. That transients are the same as customers.

3. That I have been receiving 'General Delivery Service.'

4. That calling my First-Class mail Matter forth in general delivery is a 'service.'

5. That I am a Mr. or Mister.

I will here address these presumptive errors in his beliefs:

1. I am not a customer of The Postal Service. I am transient, homeless and a sojourner on the land, and have always called my First-Class mail Matter forth in general delivery, wherever I happen to sojourn, for fellowship between the Body of Believers and myself, and not for any commercial purposes.

2. Please note that according to your DMM, "general delivery is intended primarily [not exclusively] as a temporary means of delivery." In addition, please note that at D930, 1.1(a), general delivery is for transients and customers not permanently located. 1.1 (b) and thereafter addresses the restrictions to customers only, not to transients. Those learned men and women in the law who write your DMM would not differentiate between 'transient' and 'customer' at 1.1(a) if the two terms conveyed the same meaning, and would not have dropped 'transient' after 1.1(a) if the restrictions or requirement for identification applied to transients. I hope and pray that you will note the significance of these differences in Law. Since the First-Class mail Matter that is sent to me never has any monetary value, J. D. Butler's claim of protection of it by The Postal Service through an identification request is not necessary or warranted. As the maxim of Law states, "The cause of the church is a public cause," therefore I do not involve or concern myself in or with private matters.

3. I have never received 'General Delivery Service.' I have always exercised my vested and Inherited Rights in general delivery. These traditionally vested and Inherited Rights in general delivery established by and for the church existed prior to the creation of THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE and The Post Office Department. Therefore, the question arises: can the created deny or disparage the creator? Those learned men and women in the law who write your DMM are very careful not to. Even under the international law of belligerent occupation, during time of war vested and Inherited Rights are not violated by the occupier, but protected and preserved. I hope and pray that you will take into consideration these political questions,.as they do.

4. Being a Good and Lawful Christian calling my First-Class mail Matter forth in general delivery is not a 'service' delivered by THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, but an extended governmental duty of The Postal Service from The Post Office Department. History and the nonexistence of legislation concerning general delivery clearly shows this. They have been very careful by way of the creation of the commercial 'General Delivery Service' not to violate those Rights of the church for all Good and Lawful Christians to call their First-Class mail Matter forth from the non-commercial venue of general delivery under The Post Office Department.

As a side note, I want to make it clear to you that I do not look to any Postal Service publications or rules such as the DMM for my Right in general delivery. I have pointed these sections out to you simply to display to you that those that write your guidelines recognize the protections that must be left in place according to Law, beyond the reach of the employees of The Post Office Department, THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE and THE UNITED STATES INSPECTION SERVICE. The following maxim of law clearly shows this:

May Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ continue to Richly Bless you,

John Robert: Barnes

(Fellowship Letter from Shirley Ann)

To: Randy Lee

Greetings in the Name of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ.

In August, I requested help from you concerning our perplexity on how to answer a Dallas U.S. Postal Inspector's letter sent to my Brother in Christ, John Robert, which suggested he "call to discuss" the copy of D930, and to fill out the Postal Service Identification Request Form for "protection" of his "First-Class mail being delivered to General Delivery Service," "customer" status, etc. This Inspector's letter was prompted by a phone call from the Kemp, Texas Postmaster (a woman) asking for help after she had been served with a Non-Statutory Abatement. She then refused to give my friend his mail Matter, which contained the Registered Mail "return receipt" card with her signature evidencing she had been served the Abatement.

When you informed us that the Postal Inspector is strictly under the commercial "U.S. Postal Service" and not having duties under the Postmaster General in his capacity under The Post Office Department, we realized that he could not be served an Abatement to answer his letter. We re-typed the answer letter you faxed to us and sent copies of it to the Kemp Postmaster and to the newly appointed U.S. Postmaster General William Henderson. Upon receipt of the letter, the Kemp Postmaster completely changed her attitude--absolutely amazing.

Randy, we are grateful to God for this experience, and for your help, seeing that a letter of clarification has worked in place of the Abatement. Case in point: the same Postal Inspector was contacted by another "abated" Postmaster (in Neches) the following week, and, after sending the same letter to the Postmaster there (with copies, etc., as above) my other Christian Brothers had no problems receiving their First-Class mail Matter in general delivery at either post office; in fact, the greetings by both Postmasters and all clerks have continued to be very friendly, on-going for two months now.

Praise His Holy Name, "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." Ephesians 5:11.

Love and Blessings to You All in Christ Jesus,

Shirley Ann.
general delivery
Flint, Texas.

The Shetar

An Introduction

The following is from the introduction of a law review article from The Georgetown Law Journal written by Judith A. Shapiro. There are approximately 30 footnotes that are not included here. For a complete copy of this 22 page, 184 footnoted law review , give us a call at 818-347-7080.

"English law, like the English language, is an amalgam of diverse cultural influences. The legal system may fairly be seen as a composite of discrete elements from disparate sources. After the conquest of 1066, the Normans imposed on the English an efficiently organized social system that crowded out many Anglo-Saxon traditions. The Jews, whom the Normans brought to England, in their turn contributed to the changing English society. The Jews brought a refined system of commercial law: their own form of commerce and a system of rules to facilitate and govern it. These rules made their way into the developing structure of English law.

Several elements of historical Jewish legal practice have been integrated into the English legal system. Notable among these is the written credit agreement--shetar, or starr, as it appears in English documents. The basis of the shetar, or "Jewish Gage," was a lien on all property (including realty) that has been traced as a source of the modern mortgage. Under Jewish law, the shetar permitted a creditor to proceed against all the goods and land of the defaulting debtor. Both "movable and immovable" property were subject to distraint.

The Jews in Norman England had a specified legal status. They alone could lend money at interest. They were owned by the King, and their property was his property. The King suffered their presence only so long as they served his interests--primarily as a source of liquid capital.

Because moneylending by Christians was infrequent, English law had not established its own forms of security. The Jews operated within the framework of their own legal practice, which was based on Talmudic law developed over centuries of study. But the peculiar status of the Jews as the Crown's de facto investment bankers encouraged the King to direct his courts to enforce the credit agreements made by Jews under their alien practice. This nourished the growth of Jewish law in a way that blurred the absolutes of feudal land tenure. Previously inalienable rights in land gave way to economic necessities, and the English ultimately adopted the Jewish practices.

In 1290, the Jews were expelled (from England), but their credit practices remained.

Pagan Practices, Yesterday and Today

Written and Compiled by Randy Lee

"He did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, after the abominations of the heathen." 1 Kings 21:2.

Pagan

"One who worships false gods, or one of a nation or community that does not worship the true God; a heathen; one who is neither a Christian, a Mohammedan, nor a Jew; formerly, one not a Christian people." Webster's New International Dictionary (1931), page 1546.
"The divisions of Christianity suspended the ruin of Paganism." GIBBON

pagano-Christianism

pagano-Christianism. "Christians receptive of pagan characteristics or features." Webster's New International Dictionary (1931), page 1546

Christmas

The apostles and the church of the 1st and 2nd century after Christ's resurrection, knowing first hand that birthday observances were strictly a pagan practice, did not celebrate His birth. However, by the late fourth century Christmas was celebrated by many, although on differing dates in different locals. December 25th eventually became the officially recognized date for Christmas because it coincided with the pagan festivals celebrating Saturnalia and the winter solstice (sun worship). As Christianity spread throughout Europe it assimilated into its observances, likened to Rome's embracement of the idols of its conquered peoples, many customs of the pagan winter festivals such as holly, mistletoe, the Christmas tree/goose, etc.

The Law of our Father in Heaven warns us of such practices:

"Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not." Jer. 10:2-4
"Observe thou that which I command thee this day: Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:" Exod. 34:11-16

The ways of the heathen were nailed to the cross for His chosen, for His sake:

"Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." Romans 6:4-6

The Birthday Celebration

The only two occurrences of birthday celebrations in Scripture are found to be practiced by pagans only, first in Genesis by Pharaoh:

"And it came to pass the third day, which was Pharaoh's birthday, that he made a feast unto all his servants: and he lifted up the head of the chief butler and of the chief baker among his servants." Genesis 40:20

And the second by Herod:

"But when Herod's birthday was kept, the daughter of Herodias danced before them, and pleased Herod. Whereupon he promised with an oath to give her whatsoever she would ask." Matthew 14:6

And Brother Mark's account:

"And when a convenient day was come, that Herod on his birthday made a supper to his lords, high captains, and chief estates of Galilee. And when the daughter of the said Herodias came in, and danced, and pleased Herod and them that sat with him, the king said unto the damsel, Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee." Mark 6:21-22

The Christmas Tree

The Christmas tree is of Babylonian origin representing Nimrod redivivus-- "the slain god come to life again."

In Pagan Egypt at the winter solstice, it was the palm tree denoting the reincarnated Pagan messiah as Baal-Tamar. In Pagan Rome it was the fir referring to him as Baal-Bereth (lord of the fir-tree) and was displayed on December 25th being Natalis invicti solis, "the birth-day of the unconquered Sun", the day when their victorious sun-god reappeared on earth.

Easter and Lent

The word Easter is of Chaldean origin, being Astarte, one of the titles of Beltis, "the queen of heaven," whose name, as pronounced by the people of Nineveh, was identical with that now in common use. That name, as found by Layard on the Assyrian monuments, is Ishtar (see Layard's Nineveh and Babylon, p 629).

The worship of Bel (Moloch) and Astarte was very early introduced into Britain by the Druids, "the priests of the groves." The Beltane festival was held each April, known as Easter-monath.

Writing in 550 A.D., Cassianus, the monk of Marseilles, in contrasting the early church with the Romish Church in his day, said that "it ought to be known that the observance of the forty days (Lent) had no existence, so long as the perfection of that primitive church remained inviolate." With an adjustment of the calendar in the 5th century to "revive' the Romish Church, Paganism and Christianity were further amalgamated under Lent, known at that time as the "month of Tammuz," the annual festival in commemoration of the death and resurrection of the Babylonian god of agriculture and spirit of vegetation, Tammuz, the husband of Ishtar.

The Snare of Serving false gods

"They did not destroy the nations, concerning whom the LORD commanded them: But were mingled among the heathen, and learned their works. And they served their idols: which were a snare unto them. Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood. Thus were they defiled with their own works, and went a whoring with their own inventions. Therefore was the wrath of the LORD kindled against His people, insomuch that He abhorred his own inheritance. And He gave them into the hand of the heathen; and they that hated them ruled over them. Their enemies also oppressed them, and they were brought into subjection under their hand. Many times did He deliver them; but they provoked Him with their counsel, and were brought low for their iniquity. Nevertheless He regarded their affliction, when He heard their cry:" Psalm 106:34-44

"Like Jerusalem, Babylon has a three-fold significance in Scripture, historic, prophetic, and symbolic (or typical). Historically, it may refer to the great city on the Euphrates River, to the kingdom of Babylon, or to the plain referred to as Babylonia. The empire of Babylon was used by God in the final defeat of Judah and the destruction of Jerusalem. Nebuchadnezzar begins the times of the Gentiles (Jer. 27:1-11; Dan. 2:37-38). The final and complete destruction of Babylon is foretold in the prophets (Isa. 13:17-22; Jer. 25:12-14). The city fell to the Medes in 539 B.C., but the vast desolation spoken of by the prophets has not yet come to pass.

Babylon

Three primary passages (Isa. 13; 14; 47; Jer. 50; 51; Rev. 16:17-19:5) predict Babylon's ultimate destiny. The universal sweep, particularly in Isaiah's prophecy, exceeding the scope of Babylon even in the days of its greatest glory, suggests that many aspects of this prediction have not yet been fulfilled. God did not change the whole earth when Babylon fell; in fact, the city was not destroyed at that time.

Our chief concern is with the significance of Babylon in the book of Revelation. The characteristics of the people of the land of Shinar, rebellion against God, self-sufficiency, lust for power and glory (Gen. 8:10; 11:1-9), have marked the history of Babylon through the centuries and are basic in the Babylon passage of the Apocalypse.

The exact meaning of the term "Babylon" in Revelation has been disputed from the times of the church fathers. Called a harlot repeatedly (17:1, 5, 15, 16), she is said to be seated on many waters, which are defined as peoples (vs. 15). She is also portrayed as sitting upon a scarlet beast, who represents worldly powers arrayed against the Lamb of God. The beast ultimately turns upon the harlot to destroy her. In Rev. 18 Babylon is given prominence as a commercial power.

What is the meaning of Babylon in these passages? The older commentators tended to make it a prophecy of the evil world. Others have insisted on a specific geographical reference, such as Jerusalem. But the mention of rivers and ships and extensive commercial activity does not fit the holy city. Others have identified Babylon with the city of Rome, basing the identification largely on the mention of seven hills (Rev. 17:9). The fundamental objection to this interpretation is that the persecution of the Christians by the Roman Empire stopped at the advent of Constantine, whereas Rome was taken by the barbarians only a century later. Still another view refers the passage to literal Babylon on the Euphrates, which is now a heap of sand and ruins. Others believe that the reference is symbolical, that Babylon is not to be defined geographically but ecclesiastically. Some in this group interpret Babylon as the papacy, which through the centuries has persecuted multitudes of the saints of God. The Reformers shared this view. Others of this group understand the passage as a description not so much of the Roman Church at the end of this age as of apostate Christendom as a whole.

Whatever be the final conclusion on the identity of Babylon, the following factors are clear: (1) at the end of this age two powerful forces, a federation of nations and an ecclesiatical apostate body, will unitedly exercise jurisdiction over the world; (2) there will be a persecution of the saints of God; (3) a godless, economic, commercial worldwide activity will hold sway; (4) a dual judgment will bring this condition of abomination to an end; (5) the ecclesiastical power will be torn to pieces by the federation of nations; and (6) the whole ungodly system, staggering in the drunkenness of Babylonian pride, power, and wealth, will be destroyed by an act of God, which will bring rejoicing to the people of God (Rev. 18:20). If there is any chronological sequence in these last chapters of the book of Revelation, this judgment on Babylon will soon be followed by the battle of Armageddon." W. M. SMITH , from Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary.

"The literal Babylon was the beginner and supporter of tyranny and idolatry ......This city and its whole empire were taken by the Persians under Cyrus; the Persians were subdued by the Macedonians, and the Macedonians by the Romans; so that Rome succeeded to the power of old Babylon. And it was her method to adopt the worship of the false deities she had conquered; so that by her own act she became the heiress and successor of all the Babylonian idolatry, and of all that was introduced into it by the immediate successors of Babylon, and consequently of all the idolatry of the earth. Rome, or "mystical Babylon," is "that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth" (17:18)." Easton's Bible Dictionary.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on Luke 16: 19-20

Remembering the Poor Man vs. The Modern Get Rich Gospel

"As the parable of the prodigal son set before us the grace of the gospel, which is encouraging to us all, so this sets before us the wrath to come, and is designed for our awakening; and very fast asleep those are in sin that will not be awakened by it. The Pharisees made a jest of Christ's sermon against worldliness; now this parable was intended to make those mockers serious. The tendency of the gospel of Christ is both to reconcile us to poverty and affliction and to arm us against temptations to worldliness and sensuality. We need not call it a history of a particular occurrence, but it is matter of fact that is true every day, that poor godly people, whom men neglect and trample upon, die away out of their miseries, and go to heavenly bliss and joy, which is made the more pleasant to them by their preceding sorrows; and that rich epicures, who live in luxury, and are unmerciful to the poor, die, and go into a state of insupportable torment, which is the more grievous and terrible to them because of the sensual lives they lived: and that there is no gaining any relief from their torments. Our Saviour came to bring us acquainted with another world, and to show us the reference which this world has to that; and here it does it. In this description we may observe:

I. The different condition of a wicked rich man, and a godly poor man, in this world. We know that as some of late, so the Jews of old, were ready to make prosperity one of the marks of a true church, of a good man and a favourite of heaven, so that they could hardly have any favourable thoughts of a poor man. This mistake Christ, upon all occasions, set himself to correct, and here very fully.

[1.] Christ would hereby show that a man may have a great deal of the wealth, and pomp, and pleasure of this world, and yet lie and perish for ever under God's wrath and curse. We cannot infer from men's living great either that God loves them in giving them so much, or that they love God for giving them so much; happiness consists not in these things.

[2.] That plenty and pleasure are a very dangerous and to many a fatal temptation to luxury, and sensuality, and forgetfulness of God and another world. This man might have been happy if he had not had great possessions and enjoyments.

[3.] That the indulgence of the body, and the ease and pleasure of that, are the ruin of many a soul, and the interests of it. It is true, eating good meat and wearing good clothes are lawful; but it is true that they often become the food and fuel of pride and luxury, and so turn into sin to us.

[4.] That feasting ourselves and our friends, and, at the same time, forgetting the distresses of the poor and afflicted, are very provoking to God and damning to the soul. The sin of this rich man was not so much his dress or his diet, but his providing only for himself.

2. Here is a godly man, and one that will be for ever happy, in the depth of adversity and distress (v. 20): There was a certain beggar, named Lazarus. A beggar of that name, eminently devout, and in great distress, was probably well known among good people at that time: a beggar, suppose such a one as Eleazar. Some think Eleazar a proper name for any poor man, for it signifies the help of God, which they must fly to that are destitute of other helps. This poor man was reduced to the last extremity, as miserable, as to outward things, as you can lightly suppose a man to be in this world.

(1.) His body was full of sores, like Job. To be sick in body is a great affliction; but sores are more painful to the patient, and more loathsome to those about him.

(2.) He was forced to beg his bread, and to take up with such scraps as he could get at rich people's doors. He was so sore and lame that he could not go himself, but was carried by some compassionate hand or other, and laid at the rich man's gate. Note, Those that are not able to help the poor with their purses should help them with their pains; those that cannot lend them a penny should lend them a hand; those that have not themselves wherewithal to give to them should either bring them, or go for them, to those that have. Lazarus, in his distress, had nothing of his own to subsist on, no relation to go to, nor did the parish take care of him. It is an instance of the degeneracy of the Jewish church at this time that such a godly man as Lazarus should be suffered to perish for want of necessary food." Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Bible.

The Good News, which is the Gospel, is that God Himself opens the way to obedience through faith in Jesus Christ. Christian Liberty thus bears two faces:

Christian Liberty

(1) Freedom from human disability and enslavement to Satan:

"He hath delivered us from the power of darkness and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son." Colossians 1:13 (see also Ephesians 2:2 and John 8:32, 36).

(2) Freedom for striving to do the will of God. To love Him and to know Him:

"He that hath My commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me: and he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father, and I will love him, and will manifest Myself to him.

If a man love Me, he will keep My words: and My Father will love him, and We will come unto him, and make Our abode with him." John 14:21,23 (see also Romans 3:20, John 8:31-32).

"Christian liberty emerges out of duty. The sense of duty has its origin in God, who lays the demands of His law upon everyone through the witness of conscience. Some seek relief from the divine presence in assorted forms of pseudo-freedom, philosophies, mysticisms, wealth, power, rebellion. Others pursue oblivion via drugs, busyness, dropping out, the abuse of others. But the witness of God is never stilled --and detached from duty, choice becomes freedom's counterfeit "license", slavery to fad, fashion, passion, whim, greed, megalomania. And license is the dance of death.

In a word, the God who liberates us from Egypt sets before our feet the way of life as illumined by his law (Exod. 20:2-17; Ps. 119:105), and grants us, through Christ, the gift of the Spirit by whom we can be free, that is, we can seek to do what God commands." Lester De Koster

Christian Humanism

defined

"The view that individuals and their culture have value in the Christian life. Justin Martyr appears to have been the first to offer a formulation of Christianity that included an acceptance of classical achievements as he stated in the Apology (1.46) that Christ the Word had put culture under his control. Such an approach, he believed, would restrain believers from leading vulgar lives while at the same time keeping them from attaching more importance to human culture than to the truths of the faith.

Christian humanists acknowledge the contributions of other forms of humanism, such as the classical variety that discovered the value of human liberty, and the Marxists, who realize that man has been estranged from the good life because he is dispossessed of property and subordinated to material and economic forces. However, they caution that these other forms can degenerate into excessive individualism or savage collectivism because they operate without God. The Christian humanist values culture but confesses that man is fully developed only as he comes into a right relationship with Christ. When this happens, a person can begin to experience growth in all areas of life as the new creation of revelation (II Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15)." R. G. CLOUSE, from Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary of Theology.

Bibliography. L. Bouyer, Christian Humanism; Q. Breen, John Calvin: A Study in French Humanism; H. Kung, On Being a Christian; J. Maritain, True Humanism; J. I. Packer, Knowing Man; G. Toffanin, History of Humanism; C. Trinkaus, In Our Image and Likeness; W. Bouwsma, The Interpretation of Renaissance Humanism.

Hedonism

defined

"From the Greek hedone, pleasure. Hedonism comprises all those ethical theories which identify the moral goal as happiness, pleasure. The ancient Cyrenaics assumed that accurate foresight of the pleasurable or painful results of actions constituted wisdom; later they emphasized present pleasure as the result always to be sought. Epicureans modified this, cultivating a total life of pleasure against merely momentary pleasures: "pleasure through prudence" ensuring sublety, variety, permanence, to satisfy a rational being. Neither "pure" nor "modified" hedonism provided truly moral guidance.

"Psychological hedonism" held that pleasure/ pain governs all choices (Bentham); desiring anything and finding it pleasurable are inseparable (Mill). Certainly, any object must attract (move with anticipated pleasure) before it can be chosen: yet desire for some object must precede pleasure in its attainment; pleasure itself, nor even pleasant things, are not always chosen, since that would yield no moral guidance.

"Egotistic hedonism" (Hobbes) held that, general happiness being an abstraction, each should seek only his own; or, that each seeking his own would promote general happiness. But that even refined selfishness always promotes the general good contradicts all experience.

"Altruistic hedonism" (the very influential Utilitarianism) held that each should seek the greatest happiness of the greatest number (Mill), intellectual identification with others (Sidgwick), or emotional sympathy (Hume), making others' happiness necessary to one's own. But if pleasure be the goal, why should others' pleasure deny one's own? To appeal to justice and unselfishness introduces nonhedonist considerations. And can pleasure be so totaled, and shared out?

Most modern Christians are hedonist enough to expect happiness to follow dedication, though they translate pleasure into "blessing" and assume that God's love means divine concern to shelter, comfort, and reward the good. A mature Christian hedonism, while energetic for the happiness of others, would never make its own happiness a goal, but only a reward, if God so wills, for life devoted to disinterested service of Christ; while in "happiness" it would include total spiritual welfare, with felt divine acceptance." R. E. O. WHITE

Issue the Thirty-fifth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

A Short Study of the Edification and Preservation of His church and state...

The Servant, A Word Study...

The Prosecutorial Authority and Power of Christ's church, Part Two...

Opinion, A Word Study...

The Spirit of Adoption...

In Whose Name Do You Call? Part Two...

Bits and Pieces...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Edification and Preservation

A Short Study of

of His church and state

by John Joseph and Randy Lee

"Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name? and in Thy name have cast out devils? and in Thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:21-23

It is clear from these Holy Words, that, for the unity of the church to take place, and be maintained, doing the will of Our Father takes precedence over all else. Not lip service to it--not something similar to it--not the modern Christian Humanist mime of it-- --but doing it through fully and selflessly putting on the mind of Christ. Every word that Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ spoke, clearly shows us what that will and mind is:

"Having made known unto us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He hath purposed in Himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in Him:" Ephesians 1:9-10

Over the past five hundred years, the combining of Christianity's selflessness with Humanism's selfness has resulted in the current confused doctrines of Christian Humanism, which, instead of gathering, divides. One of the main tools for "de-edifying" and dividing His church, used by these powers of darkness, is the doctrine of "religious relativism" (the "belief" that meaning and truth vary from person to person, culture to culture, and time to time ["Liberty of Conscience"]), wherein the attempt is made to undermine the church and God's Word and Will by those who "relativize" divinely revealed absolutes.

Either God's Will and His Word is true and binding for all people at all times...

"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of Thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." Psalm 119:160

...or it is true for no one at any time, and all are "free" and "at liberty" to do their own will at all times--but:

"And it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they returned, and corrupted themselves more than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them, and to bow down unto them; they ceased not from their own doings, nor from their stubborn way." Judges 2:19

"Edification and Preservation" are words that we have partially defined in the past, without fully explaining Biblically how important it is to the unity of Christ's church and state. The Humanist world has its mime of these two words and their functions; therefore we find it imperative to do a comparison to avoid any confusion that may exist.

In the study of words, not only their definitions, but their spiritual implications are so very important to the Good and Lawful Christian, because it is largely by the spoken word that you evidence whether you are either free in Christ, or a slave to sin:

"And He called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." Matthew 15:10-11

And again He warns us of the importance of words:

"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." Matthew 12:36-37.

This is how important words are to Him--the Saviour of the moral world-- and because we are His disciples they must be important to us to the same degree of importance as they are to Him.

The word "idle" here is translated from argos (ar-gos'), meaning ineffective, and worthless.

With the writing, speaking and hearing of words, there is the ever-present danger of confusing Divine Truth with man's philosophy and opinion. Many Good and Lawful Christians in the past, and in recent times, have found that since the early church of the 1st and 2nd century, the philosophy and opinion of men have, to too large of a degree, taken precedence over Scriptural Truth in those divisive "ism" institutions of "higher hierarchy" purporting to be "The Church" (Lutheranism, Roman Catholicism, Calvinism, Methodism, etc., etc., etc.). We are told of such folly:

"Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" 1 Corinthians 1:12-13

When looking to the philosophies and opinions of men, no matter how Godly they may appear, you take on all of their divisive "conceptual" baggage. "Rightly dividing the word of truth" is imperative, for we are warned that a continual separation of the wheat from the chaff is taking place according to God's plan:

"Gather yourselves together, yea, gather together, O nation not desired; Before the decree bring forth, before the day pass as the chaff, before the fierce anger of the LORD come upon you, before the day of the LORD's anger come upon you. Seek ye the LORD, all ye meek of the earth, which have wrought his judgment; seek righteousness, seek meekness: it may be ye shall be hid in the day of the LORD's anger." Zephaniah 2:1-3

In comparing the executorship of Christ's Laws and Ways and doing the will of the Father by the early church--with the modern religious corporations and commercially blessed denominations rationalizing themselves to be "The Church"--we see why the modernist's push for church reconstruction and innovation, rather than resurrection and re-establishment of the church through execution of the Law of the Lawgiver, has left these Churches with no other avenue than to preach the hedonistic "Health and Wealth Gospel" so prevalent today. A typical example of this depraved mentality was witnessed recently on what is known as "The Beast Channel," that "around-the-clock evangelizism network," stating to:

"Invest in us. Send your investment today of 35.00 dollars or more and we'll send you this video tape. You know, you do not receive anything free from God. Only when you give freely to us, you receive freely from Him."

Those were the exact blasphemous words spoken by "the Pastor." Since we must give account of the words we speak in the day of judgment, we are subject to the wrath of God for speaking like and following the ways of the natural man, which are unclean ways and words of death --"idle words." And elsewhere it is written:

"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate [*sanctified], saith the Lord, and touch not [*nor partake of] the unclean thing [*that which is impure or defiled]; and I will receive you." 2 Cor. 6:17. [*Insertions added].

The downfall of Old Testament Israel and the "New Testament Church" can be traced to that unclean and accursed thing:

"Therefore the children of Israel could not stand before their enemies, but turned their backs before their enemies, because they were accursed: neither will I be with you any more, except ye destroy the accursed from among you. Up, sanctify the people, and say, Sanctify yourselves against to morrow: for thus saith the LORD God of Israel, There is an accursed thing in the midst of thee, O Israel: thou canst not stand before thine enemies, until ye take away the accursed thing from among you." Joshua 7:12-13.

He does not speak of an accursed physical thing here, but the spiritual:

"O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things." Matthew 12:34-35.

The purpose and meaning of edification is seen in the following verses:

"For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth. For we are glad, when we are weak, and ye are strong: and this also we wish, even your perfection. Therefore I write these things being absent, lest being present I should use sharpness, according to the power which the Lord hath given me to edification, and not to destruction." 2 Corinthians 13:8-10

Let us then examine today's understanding of edification, and the secular mime:

"EDIFICATION. 1. Building (now rare) 1549; concr. A building -1584. Also fig. 2. fig. A building up in faith and holiness of life (cf. 1 Cor. XIV.) ME.; mental or moral improvement; instruction (now often ironical) 1660." Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1955), vol. I, p. 584.

Note the Biblical substance of the above definition. Law is interwoven into it. From Strong's Greek Dictionary we see that the words edify and edification used in the New Testament have a specific meaning:

"Edify. 3618 oikodomeo (oy-kod-om-eh'-o); to be a house-builder, i.e. construct or (figuratively) confirm: -- (be in) build (-er, -ing, up), edify, embolden."

Now, let us look at the Humanist mime:

"EDUCATION. 1. The process of nourishing or rearing-1661. 2. The process of bringing up (young persons); the manner in which a person has been brought up, Obs. exc. With notion of 3. 1531. 3. The systematic instruction, schooling or training given to the young (and, by extension, to adults) in preparation for the work of life. Also the whole course of scholastic instruction which a person has received. Often qualified, as classical, legal, technical, etc. 1616. Also fig. 4. Hence, Culture or development of powers, formation of character. Often qualified, as intellectual, moral, etc. 1860. 5. attrib., as E. Society, etc. 1662." Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1955), p. 584.

The first thing to notice is the ambiguity of substance in the mime--what or where is the nourishment? Is it nourishment in Truth or a "socially engineered" simulation of it? We should also take careful note of the Marxist philosophy in this mime, particularly definition #3. Note, too, the purpose of education--"culture or development of powers."

Let us now investigate what "culture" is, because culture is bandied about by many modern media pundits:

"CULTURE. 1. Worship 1483. 2. 3. cultivation; spec. the artificial development of microscopic organisms, esp. bacteria, in prepared media; concr. the product of such culture 1884. 4. fig. Improvement or refinement by education and training 1510. 5. absol. The training and refinement of mind, tastes, and manners; the condition of being thus trained and refined; the intellectual side of civilization 1805. Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1955), vol. I, p. 473.

It is important at this juncture to point out that the words train or training in the above context are used in a commercial and social engineering sense, as they are defined as "to treat so as to bring to the proper or desired form," and "to instruct and discipline in or for some particular art, profession, occupation, or practice."

Another Christian Humanist mime is:

"RECONSTRUCTION. To remodel; to form again or anew." Webster's New International Dict. (1931), p. 1784.

Since "there is no new thing under the sun" (see Ecclesiastes 1:9), what is there to "form anew" or "remodel," other than that which the natural man seeks to form or model in his own image. The "ideas" of Reconstruction and Innovation must presuppose that Christ's remnant no longer exists, and by implication, that God's Word is not "completely" true. Instead of gathering, these new ideas of the natural man further divide.

In conclusion, we will leave you with several verses concerning edification for study in order that you may further unify the church:

"Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than He? All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth." 1 Corinthians 10:21-24
"Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another." Romans 14:19
"For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with Him. Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do. And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; And to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. And be at peace among yourselves. Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men. See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men." 1Thessalonians 5:9-15

The Servant

A Word Study

by Randy Lee

In his Synonyms of the New Testament, Christian etymologist Richard Chenevix Trench wrote the following concerning the importance of the study of words:

"The words of the New Testament are eminently the stoicheia (rudiments, elements) of Christian theology, and he who will not begin with a patient study of those, shall never make any considerable, least of all any secure, advances in this: for here, as everywhere else, sure disappointment awaits him who thinks to possess the whole without first possessing the parts of which that whole is composed."

With the above in mind, it is our hope the following study of the word "servant" will give all servants of Christ Jesus a better understanding of their office and duty. The bulk of the information is drawn from Trench's Synonyms of the New Testament and Kenneth Wuest's Studies in the Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament.

There are five Greek words used in the New Testament that speak of one who renders service, the translation of which is not however uniformly given by the use of the single word "servant." They are doulos, therapon, diakonos, oiketes, and huperetes.

Doulos

Doulos is the most common word. It designates one who, (a) was born into his condition of slavery, (b) one bound to his master as his slave, (c) one who was in a permanent relationship to his master, which relationship could only be broken by death, (d) one whose will was swallowed up in the will of his master, and (e) one who served his master even to the extent that he disregarded his own interests. This word was used in the first century as a designation of a class of slaves that represented a most abject, servile condition. It is the word taken over into the New Testament to designate a sinner as a slave (Romans 6:17). It is also used to speak of a believer as a bondslave of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ (Romans 1:1). However, in this latter case the servility and abjectness are not included in the meaning of the word, but the fact that the finger of God through the Bible writers used it to describe the Christian shows that He desired to retain its connotation of humbleness on the part of the slave. As bondslaves of Christ Jesus, we are to ever remember that we must serve Him in all humility of mind. Using the various meanings of doulos, we see how the classical usage of the word is in exact accord with its spiritual implications in the New Testament. For instance, a sinner is born into slavery to sin by his physical birth, and into a loving and obedient servitude to the Saviour Who has freely given you a spiritual new-birth. Doulos is found in the following places: Matthew 8:9; 10:24, 25; 13:27, 28; 18:23, 26, 27, 28, 32; 20:27; 21:34, 35, 36; 22:3, 4, 6, 8, 10; 24:45, 46, 48, 50; 25:14, 19, 21, 23, 26, 30; 26:51 --Mark 10:44; 12:2, 4; 13:34; 14:47. --Luke 2:29; 7:2, 3, 8, 10; 12:37, 38, 43, 45, 46, 47; 14:17, 21, 22, 23; 15:22; 17:7, 9, 10; 19:13, 15, 17, 22; 20:10, 11; 22:50. --John 4:51, 8:34, 35; 13:16, 15:15, 20; 18:10, 18, 26.--Acts 2:18; 4:29; 16:17. --Romans 1:1; 6:16, 17, 19, 20.--I Corinthians 7:21, 22, 23; 12:13.--II Corinthians 4:5.--Galatians 1:10; 3:28; 4:1, 7.--Ephesians 6:5, 6, 8.--Philippians 1:1; 2:7.--Colossians 3:11, 22; 4:1, 12.--I Timothy 6:1--II Timothy 2:24.--Titus 1:1; 2:9.--Philemon 16.--James 1:1.--I Peter 2:16.--II Peter 1:1; 2:19.--Jude 1.-- and Revelation 1:1; 2:20; 6:15; 7:3; 10:7; 11:18; 13:16; 15:3; 19:2, 5, 18; 22:3, 6. Doulos is translated in these passages by the words "servant, bond, or bondman." The verb douleuo which has the same root as doulos, therefore having the same implications, and which means, (a) to be a slave, (b) to serve, (c) to do service, (d) to obey, and (e) to submit to, -- in a good sense meaning, "to obey one's commands and render to him the services due," is found in Acts 7:6; Romans 6:18, 22; I Corinthians 7:15, 9:19; Galatians 4:3; Titus 2:3; and II Peter 2:19. It is translated either by the word "servant" or "bondage," together with the accompanying verb, and in Titus 2:3 by the word "given."

Therapon

Concerning the word therapon, Trench says:

"The therapon...is the performer of present services, with no respect to the fact whether as a freemen or slave he renders them; as bound by duty, or impelled by love; and thus, as will necessarily follow, there goes habitually with the word the sense of one whose services are tenderer, nobler, freer than those of the doulos. Thus Achilles styles Patroclus his therapon..., one whose service was not constrained, but the officious ministration of love; very much like that of the squire or page of the Middle Ages. In the verb therapeuo (to serve, do service, to heal, cure, restore to health),...as distinguished from douleuo..., the nobler and tenderer character of the service comes still more strongly out. It may be used of the physician's watchful tendance of the sick, or man's service to God.

"It will follow that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, calling Moses a therapon in the house of God (3:5), implies that he occupied a more confidential position, that a freer service, a higher dignity was his, than that merely of a doulos, approaching more closely to that of an oikonomos (the manager of a household, a steward, a superintendent) in God's house; and referring to Numbers 12:6-8, we find, confirming this view, that an exceptional dignity is there ascribed to Moses, lifting him above other doulos of God...It would have been well if our Translators had seen some way to indicate the exceptional and more honorable title given to him who 'was faithful in all God's house'."

Therapon occurs but once in the New Testament, at Hebrews 3:5.

Diakonos

Diakonos is derived from the verb dioko meaning "to hasten after, to pursue." In comparing this word with doulos and therapon, Trench has the following to say:

"The difference between diakonos on one side, and doulos and therapon on the other, is this--that diakonos represents the servant in his activity for the work;...not in his relation, either servile, as that of the doulos, or more voluntary, as in the case of the therapon, to a person. The attendants at a feast, and this with no respect to their condition as free or servile, are diakonos (John 2:5, Mat.22:13, compare John 12:2). The importance of preserving the distinction between doulos and diakonos may be illustrated from the parable of the Marriage Supper (Mat. 22:2-14). In our Version the king's 'servants' bring in the invited guests (v. 3, 4, 8, 10) and his 'servants' are bidden to cast out that guest who was without a wedding garment (v. 13); but in the Greek, those, the bringers-in of the guests, are doulos: these, the fulfillers of the king's sentence, are diakonos--this distinction being a most real one, and belonging to the essentials of the parable; the doulos being the ambassadors of Christ, who invite their fellowmen into His kingdom now, the diakonos angels, who in all the judgment acts at the end of the world evermore appear as the executors of the Lord's will."

Thus, diakonos represents the servant in his activity for the work he is to do. It speaks of one who executes the commands of another, especially of a master. The word is found in Matthew 20:26; 22:13; 23:11.--Mark 9:35, 10:43.--John 2:5, 9; 12:26.--Romans 13:4; 15:8; 16:1.--I Corinthians 3:5.--II Corinthians 3:6; 6:4; 11:15, 13.--Galatians 2:17.--Ephesians 3:7; 6:21.--Philippians 1:1.--Colossians 1:7, 23, 25; 4:7.--I Thessalonians 3:2. --and I Timothy 3:8, 12; 4:6.

Diakonos is translated in these places "minister, servant, deacon." The verb diakoneo which is from the same root and which means (a) to be a servant, attendant, or domestic, (b) to serve, to wait upon, to minister to one, (c) to wait at table and offer food and drink to guests, to supply food and the necessaries of life, (d) render ministering offices to, (e) to minister a thing to one, and (f) to serve one with or by supplying anything; and is found in Matthew 4;11; 8:15; 20:28; 25:44; 27:55.--Mark 1:13, 31; 10:45; 15:41.--Luke 4:39; 8:3; 10:40; 12:37; 17:8; 22:26, 27.--John 12, 2, 26.--Acts 6:2; 19:22.--Romans 15:25. --II Corinthians 3:3; 8:19, 29.--I Timothy 3;10, 13.--II Timothy 1:18.--Philemon 13.--Hebrews 6:10.--and I Peter 1:12; 4:10, 11. Diakoneo is translated in these places "minister, serve, administer."

The word diakonia which has the same root as diakonos and means "service, ministering," used especially of those who execute commands, is found in Luke 10:40. --Acts 1:17, 25; 6:1, 4; 11:29; 12:25; 20:24, 21; 21:19.--Romans 11:13; 12:7; 15:31.--I Corinthians 12:5; 16:15.--II Corinthians 3:7, 8, 9; 4:1; 5:18; 6:3; 8:4; 9:1, 12, 13; 11:8.--Ephesians 4:12. --Colossians 4:17.--I Timothy 1;12.--II Timothy 4:5, 11.--Hebrews 1:14.--and Revelation 2:19. Diakonia is translated in these places, "ministry, serving, ministration, office, administration, service."

Oiketes

Oiketes has the same root as the Greek word for "house" (oikos). It designates a house-servant, one holding closer relations to the family than other slaves. Trench says of this word:

"Oiketes is often used as equivalent to doulos. It certainly is so in I Peter 2:18; and hardly otherwise on the three remaining occasions on which it occurs in the N.T., (Lk. 16;13; Acts 10:7; Rom. 14:4); nor does the LXX (Ex. 21:27; Deut. 6:21; Prov. 17:2) appear to recognize any distinction between them; the Apocrypha as little (Eccl. 10:25). At the same time oiketes ('domesticus') does not bring out and emphasize the servile relation so strongly as doulos does; rather contemplates that relation from a point of view calculated to mitigate, and which actually did tend very much to mitigate, its extreme severity. He is one of the household, of the 'family,' in the older sense of this word; not indeed necessarily one born in the house; oikogenes (born in the house, home-bred, said of a slave) is the word for this in the LXX (Gen. 14:14; Eccl. 2:7)."

Huperetes

Lastly, Trench says that huperetes is:

"a word drawn from military matters; he was originally a rower..., as distinguished from the soldier, on board a war-galley; then the performer of any strong and hard labor; then the subordinate official who waited to accomplish the behests of his superior, as the orderly who attends a commander in war...; the herald who carries solemn messages....In this sense, as an inferior minister to perform certain defined functions for Paul and Barnabas, Mark was their huperetes together (Acts 13:5); and in this official sense of lictor, apparitor, and the like, we find the word constantly, indeed predominantly used in the N.T. (Mt. 5:25; Lk. 4:20; John 7:32, 18:18; Acts 5:22). The mention by St. John of doulos and huperetes together (18:18) is alone sufficient to indicate that a difference is by him observed between them; from which difference it will follow that he who struck the Lord on the face (John 18:22) could not be, as some suggest, the same whose ear the Lord had just healed (Lk, 22:51), seeing that this was a doulos, that profane and petulant striker a huperetes, of the High Priest. The meanings of diakonos and huperetes are much more nearly allied; they do in fact continually run into one another, and there are innumerable occasions on which the words might be indifferently used; the more official character and functions of the huperetes is the point in which the distinction between them resides."

Huperetes is found in the following places: Matthew 5:25; 26:58.--Mark 15:54, 65.--Luke 1:2; 4:20.--John 7:32, 45, 46; 18:3, 12, 18, 22, 36; 19:6.--Acts 5:22, 26; 13:5; 26:16.--and I Corinthians 4:1. It is translated by the words "officer, servant, minister."

The following is a brief summary of this word study for contrast purposes:

Doulos, the most common word, and one that spoke of a slave in the most servile condition, is not a specialized word. The chief idea that it conveys is that the slave is bound to his master. He is in a condition of bondage. The word doulos comes from deo which means "to bind." A doulos was a person who was born into the condition of slavery, one who was in a permanent relationship to his master which only death could break, one who served his master even to the extent that he disregarded his own interests.

Therapon lays the emphasis upon the fact that the person serving is a performer of present services, with no respect to the fact whether as a freeman or a slave he renders them, whether bound by duty or impelled by love. There goes habitually with the word the sense of one whose services are tender, nobler, freer than those of a doulos.

Diakonos speaks of the servant in his activity for the work, not in his relation, either servile, as that of a doulos, or more voluntary, as in the case of a therapon. The word speaks of one who executes the commands of another, especially, those of a master.

Oiketes designates a household slave, one holding closer relation to the family than other slaves. He is one of the household of the "family."

Huperetes emphasizes the official capacity of the servant. It designated the subordinate official who waited to accomplish the behests of his superior.

To narrow the definitions down even more, we could say that doulos is a slave in his servile relation to his master; therapon, a slave whose services are more tender, nobler, and freer; diakonos, a slave seen in his activity executing the commands of his master; oiketes a household slave; and huperetes, a slave holding a subordinate official position.

The Prosecutorial Authority

and Power of Christ's church

"If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand [*at the bar] before the LORD, before the priests and the judges [*the church in Christ], which shall be in those days; And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. Deuteronomy 19:16-19

This is another place the Good and Lawful Christian separates from the pagan. The Good and Lawful Christian uses the Law of His Sovereign in the Court of His Sovereign; and, the pagan must use the pretence of law written in codes, rules and regulations by his "sovereign" in the "court" of his purported "sovereign." Are the two equal or the same? Clearly the answer is "no" as seen from above. Note too, that in God's Law there is no separation of jurisdiction under man's law. In other words, man cannot use his forms of law to set up a jurisdiction outside of God's creation. This principle in Law is recognized:

"Rule of court must be subordinate to law, and in case of conflict the law will prevail." Suckley's Administrator v. Rotchford (1855), 12 Grattan (Va.) 60, 65 Am.Dec. 240.

It is the Law that is used which sanctifies one to the Sovereign of the Law:

"Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word [*in and of Christ]." Psalm 119:9. [*Insertion added].

Let us examine this further:

"Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth." Psalm 119:142 [Emphasis added].
"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." Psalm 119:160.
"He is the Rock, His work is perfect: for all His ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is He." Deuteronomy 32:4.
"The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether." Psalm 19:9 [Emphasis added].
"Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy word is truth.And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth [*Law and Word of our Father]." John 17:17, 19 [*Insertion & emphasis added]

When one is sanctified by the Law, one is under the sanctifying Law and the Lawgiver giving Sanctification. If God's Law is the Truth, and the Good and Lawful Christian is in Christ, then the Good and Lawful Christian is in the Truth under the Law of God:

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me." John 14:6.
"Verse 6. I am the WAY-- That leads so the Father:--the TRUTH that teaches the knowledge of God, and directs in the way:--the LIFE that animates all those who seek and serve him, and which is to be enjoyed eternally at the end of the way.
Christ is the WAY: 1. By his doctrine, John 6:68. 2. By his example, 1 Peter 2:91. 3. By his sacrifice, Hebrews 9:8, 9. 4. By his Spirit, John 16:13.
He is the TRUTH: 1. In opposition to all false religions. 2. To the Mosaic law, which was only the shadow, not the truth or substance, of the good things which were to come. And 3. In respect to all the promises of God, 2 Corinthians 1:20.
He is the LIFE, both in grace and glory; the life that not only saves from death, but destroys it." Adam Clarke, Commentaries on the Bible, vol. 5, pp 256-257.

And by corollary then, the pagan is not in the Truth; and, because not in Truth is subject to God's Judgment of wrath for his "law" is a lie. This is the stranger of Jeremiah 51:51. This accords with Brother Paul's explanation of the Good and Lawful Christian being not subject to God's wrath when he sojourns in Christ.

Looking back at Christ's work in the Temple, we see that a declaration in Truth is to set the Law of the court. The Law opens and sets the Court, which means it sets the lex loci of the Court itself. Being in God's Court then requires the use of His Law exclusively--codes, rules, and regulations, have no standing in this Court, because of the following:

"Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law?" Psalm 94:20.
"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8-9.
"And He said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world." John 8:23.
"Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto Me with their mouth, and honoureth Me with their lips; but their heart is far from Me. But in vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."Matthew 15:6b-9. (see also Isaiah 29:13 and Ezekiel 33:31).

We have seen that the Truth is in Christ and in the Law of God, for the two are one being merged in the Ministerial Office of Christ, alone. The Law describes the duties and obligations appertaining to the Sacred Ministerial Office of Christ. But where do we find such Law? There are two places, first,--

"But the word [*of God revealed in Christ] is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it." Deuteronomy 30:14.
"And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh: That they may walk in My statutes, and keep Mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be My people, and I will be their God." Ezekial 11:19-20.
"Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." Luke 17:21.
"But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith [*in Christ, the Way, the Truth, and the Life], which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon Him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Romans 10:8-14. [*Insertion and emphasis added].

Confession is done not only by words, for the fruits of the Word written on our hearts manifested in the works we do in faithfulness to Him who sent us speak louder than mere words:

"But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given Me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of Me, that the Father hath sent Me." John 5:36.
"Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me." John 10:25.
"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to My gospel." Rom 2:14-16.

So don't be dragged about by every wind of doctrine, ideology, or patriot package, ad nauseam:

"It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man." Psalm 118:8.
"Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help." Psalm 146:3.
"That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;" Ephesians 4:14.

Knowing that the Law is written on our heart is only one witness, so we must look elsewhere for supporting witness, for God, solely by His Grace, gave us these rules of evidence in Scripture and He would not leave us destitute of witnesses:

"One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established." Deuteronomy 19:15.
"But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." Matthew 18:16.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." I Thessalonians 5:21.

So we look elsewhere for other witnesses of God's choosing and we find the following:

"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:" Romans 8:16.
"And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." I John 5:8.

So here we have our witnesses. We have other witnesses, such as our brothers in Christ, the angels in heaven, creation, Sacred Scripture--

"Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us," Hebrews 12:1.

The important thing is all these witnesses must corroborate us or we are not in Truth. This is because all of these witnesses corroborate each other in Truth. So knowing this, we must frame the action at-Law in Truth so as to set a Record in God's Court which can then be used to execute the Judgment of Christ against all those heathen and ungodly and bind the fetters of iron on their earthly kings and princes:

"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth [*according to the judgment written] shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matthew 16:19. [*Insertion added].

The Record is not what you think. Most people have the idea of a record being something written on paper. This is partially true; but, the Record we are referring to here is the record of you sojourning in covenant with God in and through the Sacred Ministerial Office of Christ which all Good and Lawful Christians "occupy til He comes":

"And I will establish My covenant between Me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." Genesis 17:7.
"Know therefore that the LORD thy God, He is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love Him and keep His commandments to a thousand generations;" Deuteronomy 7:9.

Note carefully the words of the Christ in Luke 10:16-20. This historical and judicial Record found and built in and on Truth is so important that upon it a whole community, His church, is built by God Himself by and in His Word:

"Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain." Psalm 127:1.
"Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath; But with him that standeth here with us this day before the LORD our God, and also with him that is not here with us this day:" Deuteronomy 29:14.
"For where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them." Matthew 18:20.
"Truth is the bond of union among saints." David Fernice, in conversation, quoted by Augustus Toplady, Complete Works (1794), p. 604.
"It was the people of Israel which from its very beginning--since it was created by the Mosaic revelation of God--understood its relation to God as historical, and its history as the result of its relation to God. Yahweh is the Covenant God, and the covenant of God with Israel and of Israel with Yahweh is the content of its history. History is that which takes place between the personal God and His people. No other nation, either before or after Israel, ever understood its history in this way. In accordance with this truth, therefore, even at the stage of the early Mosaic revelation the life of the people of Israel was conceived in personal terms. In the national life of Israel the main concern was not with culture, civilization, technique, world-conquest, or political power--although these motives certainly often predominated very strongly in actual fact--but with one thing only: the obedience of the nation to one God, and the union of the members of the nation to one another in community, based upon this relation to God. From the very outset the ethos of Israel is strictly personal and social." Brunner, Man in Revolt, (1946), page 448.

Christ's church also has a Record in Him, which distinguishes it from the purported record of the world, because it is in Truth being one of His Works:

"For the word of the LORD is right; and all His works are done in truth." Psalm 33:4. [Emphasis added].
"All believers who have been baptized have, by participation in that rite, attested to their identification with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection, which the rite symbolizes. [*It is upon this doctrine that Christ's church stands having all things common.] Since they share with him by faith in his obedience unto death, they also now share with him in the new life that is brought into being by the resurrection. Here is a form ofexistence that is not subject to death, and that is triumphant over sin and the powers of evil which held the old life in subjection. [*If triumphant over sin in the spiritual realm, it is triumphant over its manifestations in the physical realm.] Paul states the concept of the new creation succinctly in writing to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 15:22): 'as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.' Again, we see the Hebrew condition of the solidarity of God's people expressing itself in the inclusion of all humanity under two heads: Adam and Christ." Kee and Young, Understanding the New Testament (1957), page 282. [*Insertions added].

It is this Record in Truth that is evidence of your covenant with God, for those who have no Record in Truth of covenant with God are strangers to Him and His church:

"STRANGERS. By this term is intended third persons generally. Thus the persons bound by a fine are parties, privies, and strangers; the parties are either cognizors or cognizees; the privies are such as are in any way related to those who levy the fine, and claim under them by any right of blood, or other right of representation; the strangers are all other persons in the world, except only the parties and privies. In its general legal signification the term is opposed to the word 'privy.' Those who are in no way parties to a covenant, nor bound by it [*i.e., Law-less], are also said to be strangers to the covenant." Brown. See Robbins v. Chicago, 4 Wall. 672, 18 L.Ed. 427; Wilson v. Smith, 213 Ky. 836, 281 S.W. 1008, 1010; State v. Mills, 23 N.M. 549, 169 P. 1171, 1173; Gronewold v. Gronewold, 304 Ill. 11, 136 N.E. 489, 490. See, also, STRANGER. Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 1590. [*Insertion and emphasis added].
"The life of the community, like the life of the human body, is dependent on certain central organs. No member of a human body can live independently, although the body can continue to function even after some members have been removed. For Paul the central organ in a human body was the head, which he regarded as the seat of life. Analogously, the life of 'members' in the Body of Christ was dependent upon the Head--that is, Christ. The Head (Colossians 2:18, 19) is not only the source of life for the entire body; it also determines the form of the body's growth and integrates the life of the whole body. The theme of the oneness of the body and its dependence on the head is developed much more elaborately in the letter to the Ephesians, which, though it parallels Paul's thought, was probably not written by him.
"The community [*Christ's church], therefore, cannot consider itself as autonomous. It depends for its existence and for its continuance on Jesus Christ, who called the community into being, who died to seal the covenant on which the community is founded, and who has sent the Spirit to guide and empower its corporate life [*in Him]." Kee and Young, Understanding the New Testament (1957), pp. 283-284. [*Insertions and emphasis added.]

"A state is a community [*in Christ] or assemblage of men and the government the political agency through which it acts in international [*or interstate] relations." Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Russia, 21 F.2d 396, 400. [*Insertion added. Definition here is misleading: a physical body of an agent must exist prior to its contract of agency. There is no contract between the government of a State and the state itself. Therefore, agency is a misleading term.]

Because God's Law is Truth, and the Record is established by His Law, then only those having covenant with Him are Parties of Record in Truth. Thus those: One, who truly do not honour the Son cannot honour the Father Who has sent Him; and Two, who have their names Recorded in the Lamb's Book of Life and in the Life of His church here (the two witness rule) possess evidence of their sanctification in and allegiance to Him alone.

It is in this Office that the Record of you and your acts must be found. This means then, that if you do any thing for revenge, you are not sojourning in the Truth, i.e. but travel in a lie outside the Office of Christ, and seek your own glory:

"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my [*our] trust." 1 Timothy 1:9-11. [*Insertion and emphasis added].

This is why merely carrying a Bible, mechanically mouthing a collection of buzz words, or going "to church" (to give lip service) mean nothing because they are not evidence of you sojourning with God: i.e.:

"And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man hath not where to lay His head." Matthew 8:20. See also Luke 9:58.
"For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers [*executors] of the law shall be justified." Romans 2:13. [*Insertion added.]

Having all the marks of commerce means one travels with another god--the god of the "health and wealth gospel" with a twist of "rapture fever" and "prophecy scare" added to round out the weapons of the destroyer and increase his revenue. The witness does not corroborate the profession:

"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone [*destitute of witnesses]. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." James 2:14, 17-24.

God alone prevails in all situations and the best we can do is glorify Him by honouring His Son, our Sovereign Lord and Saviour, Christ Jesus, "in Whom we live, move and have our being." (2 Acts 17:28) The importance of setting a Record in God's Court cannot be stressed enough. This is seen later in the Book of Revelation when we all are judged out of the books--the Record in His Court which He keeps.

We will now have to concern ourselves with where in Sacred Scripture specific issues of Law are addressed, pray for the Holy Spirit of God to move us, and be able to "rightly divide the word of Truth" of the Sacred Scripture in the direction we are led. This will eventually lead us to examine the vulnerability of the religious corporation to the Lawful Execution of God's Law. This is not covered in very great detail in this work, but will be covered in another work yet to be published. Suffice it to say the following in this regard:

"Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve." 1 Luke 22:3.
"Verse 3. Then entered Satan into Judas--The devil filled the heart of Judas with avarice; and that infamous passion led him to commit the crime here specified. This at once accounts for the whole of this most unprincipled and unnatural transaction. None but a devil, or he who is possessed by one, could have been guilty of it:-let the living lay this to heart. A minister of the Gospel, who is a lover of money, is constantly betraying the interests of Christ. He cannot serve two masters; and while his heart is possessed with the love of self, the love of God and zeal for perishing souls cannot dwell in him. What Satan could not do by the envy and malice of the high priests and Pharisees, he effects by Judas, a false and fallen minister of the Gospel of God. None are so dangerous to the interests of Christianity as persons of this stamp." Adam Clarke, Commentaries on the Bible, vol. 5, pp. 922-923.

This accords fully with Brother Paul's epistle to Brother Timothy:

"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." 1 Timothy 6:10.
"Verse 10. The love of money is the root of all evil. Perhaps it would be better to translate all evil, "of all these evils"; i.e. the evils enumerated above; for it cannot be true that the love of money is the root of all evil, it certainly was not the root whence the transgression of Adam sprang, but it is the root whence all the evils mentioned in the preceding verse spring. This text has been often very incautiously quoted; for how often do we hear, "The Scripture says, Money is the root of all evil!" No, the Scripture says no such thing. Money is the root of no evil, nor is it an evil of any kind; but the love of it is the root of all the evils mentioned here." Adam Clarke, Commentaries on the Bible, vol. 6, p. 188.

Good and Lawful Christians need and want not these wasters of Christ's inheritance in their midst:

The Kind We Don't Want

"When a minister is in search of popularity and a big salary, I don't blame him for leaving the Christian Church and going to some other denomination. He can't be a success in the Christian Church, and is not needed among us. We want ministers whose chief aim is to save souls --ministers who are willing to preach the Gospel to the poor, even for a small salary. Men who after large salaries may get their reward. I honor the minister who labors to save souls, and will not leave a field of usefulness for "filthy lucre's sake." Rev. H. M. Eaton, Herald of Gospel Liberty (1908), p. 209.

The singular Good and Lawful Christian does not carry the lex talionis (law of retaliation) of the prosecutorial power with him. The reason is plain enough: Christ was not slain from the foundation of the world for just one of His church, but for all His church:

"We are called, since the Christ has given himself a sacrifice for us. In a correspondence with other types and forms of sacrifice, it is written, wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. This is made the ground of a principle of duty, and we are bidden, let us go forth, therefore, unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. This is not the suffering of the Christ as an equivalent for the suffering of humanity, nor as a substitute for humanity; it is the sacrifice of the Christ fulfilled in humanity. It is the adoption of the sacrifice by participation by humanity; let us go forth, therefore, unto him without the camp bearing his reproach. The Christ had said, if any man will come after me, let him take up his cross and follow me; and he said of his disciples, in their continuing relation with him, ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and the baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with.
"There is thenceforth in the life of humanity the manifestation of redemptive forces. There are redemptive forces continuing in the coming of the Christ and in the life of the spirit, in his redemptive kingdom on the earth. They come forth in the life of righteousness in the family and the nation. These are the forces which work through the life of humanity, in conflict with the evil of the world. The law of sacrifice becomes, then, the law of life. The contradiction in the revelation of the Christ is verified and solved in the course of history, and the words are justified: he that loseth his life shall find it. The work of the sacrifice goes on in the process of history. The Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world prefigures its course. The condition of the life of the last nation becomes the same as the first, the sacrifice of the worthier of her children. Their sacrifice is the perpetuation of the life of the nation; their sacrifice is the way to her deliverance from slavery; their sacrifice is the ground of her unity and peace. This was not the sacrifice of a certain number of men for a certain other member of men; it was not the sacrifice of a certain smaller number of men that a certain larger number might be exempt from sacrifice, and might live in self-indulgence. It was sacrifice for the life of the nation. It was life through death. It was that in all there might be the spirit and recognition of the law of sacrifice, the self-renunciation of the individual, which is the only way to the perfect self-realization, and the beginning of the life that is eternal. This law has a moral ground, which cannot be comprehended in the atomy of human society, nor in the severance through society of the superior from the inferior, nor in the apprehension of it as an accumulation of private interests, nor in any detachment of its from God.
"Henceforth the law of sacrifice becomes the law of power. In this world of forms the symbols of sacrifice become the symbols of power. The Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world becomes, in the mystic vision of St. John the Divine, the Lamb that sits in the midst of the throne. This type is not lost in history. The manifestation of power is not in a separation from men, nor in the assertion of a dominion over men, but in the service of men. It is not the Caesar that becomes the enduring power with men. The nation, which in this last age, is the exponent of the highest historical forces, has its foundations, its unity and order and freedom, laid in sacrifice. But it is through sacrifice, as through the negation of this finite world, that there is the coming off the life that is eternal, the realization of the life that is infinite.
"The sacrifice of the Christ was the perfect and finished sacrifice,-- the sacrifice of one who bore the burden of this finite world, in the fulfillment of the perfect righteousness, the manifestation of the perfect love, the revelation of the perfect life. It was the will of God before the foundation of the world; it was the sufficient sacrifice for the sin of the whole world, the foundation of eternal life and unity and peace." Mulford, The Republic of God (1881), p. 186-189.

The whole of the Prosecutorial Authority and Power of the church rests solely and squarely upon the Atonement and Judgment of Christ Jesus, from the foundation of the world, "In the beginning God (Elohim)" and "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."; and not in codes, rules and regulations from after the sixth day of Creation. This is where His church departs from the religious corporation. His church pre-existed the religious corporation of man. To build your life on His Foundation has one requirement: Repentance to Him who calls you out of the world from before the foundation of the world. Without heeding His call, there is and can be no Lawful vesting of Authority. And, without the Lawful vesting of Authority there is no Lawful power that can be wielded for His Glory. Source, cause and origin are the material of the substance of all Authority and Power.

"Establishing the Record," "Execution," and "Prosecution" will conclude this series next month.

Opinion

A Word Study

"OPINION. Opinion, view, belief, conviction, persuasion, sentiment come into comparison when they mean a more or less clearly formulated idea or judgment which one holds as true. An opinion is a more or less carefully thought-out conclusion concerning something that is or may be questioned. The word not only does not exclude the suggestion of consideration of all the evidence and of arguments on both sides, but it sometimes implies such consideration; as, Justice ---- presented the minority opinion at today's session of the Supreme Court; the critics differ in their opinion of the quality of the book; to seek an expert opinion on the authenticity of a painting; the attending physician said he would like the opinion of a consulting physician. However, the term [*589] more consistently suggests (even in the preceding instances) a personal element in the judgment, the possibility of being in error, and the strong probability that it will even be disputed." Webster's Dictionary of Synonyms (1951), pp. 588-589.

"OPINION. In Practice. The statement or reasons delivered by a judge or court for giving the judgment which is pronounced upon a case. The judgment itself is sometimes called an opinion; and sometimes the opinion is spoken of as the judgment of the court.

"The ultimate step taken by the court is commonly called a decision, or, in common law cases, a judgment; and in equity cases, a decree; where the opinion is unanimous it is, in America, often termed a 'per curiam opinion.'

"In England judgment is commonly used for opinion, and 'per curiam' is sometimes applied to any opinion of the whole court. Brief Making by Lile and Others, 2d. Ed. By R. W. Cooley, 102.

"A declaration, usually in writing, made by a counsel to the client of what the law is, according to his judgment, on a statement of facts admitted to him.

"An opinion is in both the above cases a decision of what principles of law are to be applied in the particular case, with the difference that judicial opinions pronounced by the court are law and of authority, while the opinions of counsel, however eminent are merely advice to his client or argument to the court." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 2419.

The Spirit of Adoption

from Adam Clarke's Commentaries

You are brought into the family of God by adoption; and the Agent that brought you into this family is the Holy Spirit; and this very Spirit continues to witness to you the grace in which you stand, by enabling you to call God your Father, with the utmost filial confidence and affection.

The Spirit of adoption. Adoption was an act frequent among the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans, by which a person was taken out of one family and incorporated with another. Persons of property, who had no children of their own, adopted those of another family. The child thus adopted ceased to belong to his own family and was in every respect bound to the person who had adopted him, as if he were his own child, and in consequence of the death of his adopting father he possessed his estates. If a person after he had adopted a child happened to have children of his own, then the estate was equally divided between the adopted and real children. The Romans had regular forms of law by which all these matters were settled.

Whereby we cry, Abba, Father. It has been remarked that slaves were not permitted to use the term Abba, father, or Imma, mother, in accosting their masters and mistresses. And from this some suppose that the apostle intimates that being new brought from under the spirit of bondage, in which they durst not call God their Father, they are not only brought into a new state, but have got that language which is peculiar to that state. Some have supposed that the apostle, by using the Syriac and Greek words which express Father, shows the union of Jewish and Gentile believers in those devotions which were dictated by a filial spirit. Others have thought that these were the first words which those generally uttered who were made partakers of the Holy Spirit. It is enough to know that it was the language of their sonship; and that it expressed the clear assurance they had of being received in to the divine favour, the affection and gratitude they felt for this extraordinary blessing and their complete readiness to come under the laws and regulations of the family, and to live in the spirit of obedience.

"And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ." Gal 3:29-4:7.

"And if ye be Christ's. Or, as several good MSS. read, 'If ye be one in Christ.' If you have all received justification through His Blood, and the mind that was in Him, then are ye Abraham's seed; you are that real, spiritual posterity of Abraham, that other seed, to whom the promises were made; and then heirs according to the promise, being fitted for the rest that remains for the people of God, that heavenly inheritance which was typified by the earthly Canaan.

"The heir, as long as he is a child. Though he be appointed by his father's will heir of all his possessions, yet till he arrive at the legal age he is master of nothing, and does not differ from one of the common domestics.

"But is under tutors, 'guardians' and governors, those who have the charge of the family. These words are nearly similar; but we may consider the first as 'executor,' the last as the person who superintends the concerns of the family and estate till the heir become such as we call 'trustee.' Until the time appointed of the father. The time mentioned in the father's will or testament.

"Even so we. The whole Jewish people were in a state of nonage [*infancy] while under the law. The elements of the world. A mere Jewish phrase 'the principles of this world'; that is the rudiments or principles of the Jewish religion. The apostle intimates that the law was not the science of salvation; it was only the elements or alphabet of it; and in the gospel this alphabet is composed into a most glorious system of divine knowledge. But as the alphabet is nothing of itself unless compounded into syllables, words, sentences, and discourses, so the law taken by itself, gives not salvation. It contains in deed the outlines of the gospel, but it is the gospel alone that fills up the outlines.

"When the fulness of time was come. The time which God in His infinite wisdom counted best, in which all His counsels were 'filled up'; the time which His Spirit, by the prophets, had specified; and the time to which He intended the Mosaic institutions should extend, and beyond which they should be of no avail. [*It is God's counsel which set aside the veil penetrated by Christ Jesus.]

"God sent forth His Son, Him who came immediately from God Himself, made of a woman, according to the promise, Gen iii, 15; produced by the power of God in the womb of the Virgin Mary without any intervention man. [*Solely by the will and power of God Almighty.] Made under the law. In subjection to it, that in Him all its designs may be fulfilled and by His death the whole might be abolished, the law dying when the Son of God expired upon the Cross.

"To redeem them. To 'pay down a price' for them, and thus 'buy them off' from the necessity of circumcision, offering brute sacrifices, performing different ablutions, etc. That we might receive the adoption of sons. Which adoption we could not obtain by the law for it is the gospel only that puts us among the children and gives us a place in the heavenly family.

"And because ye are sons. By faith in Christ Jesus, being redeemed from both the bondage and the curse of the law, God the father, called generally the First Person of the glorious Trinity, hath sent forth the Spirit--the Holy Ghost, the Second Person of that Trinity--of His Son, Jesus [*the] Christ, the Third Person of the Trinity.

"Crying, Abba, Father, from the fullest and most satisfactory evidence that God, the Father, Son and Spirit, had become their portion.

"Thou art no more a servant. You who have believed in Christ [*Jesus] are no longer a 'slave,' either under the dominion of sin or under the obligation to the Mosaic ritual; but a son of God, adopted into the heavenly family. And if a son, then an heir. Having a right to the inheritance because one of the family, for none can inherit but the children. But this heirship is the most extraordinary of all. It is not an heirship of any tangible possession, either in heaven or on earth; it is not to possess a part or even the whole of either. It is to possess Him who made all things; not God's works, but God Himself; heirs of God through Christ [*Jesus]." Adam Clarke, The Bethany Parallel Commentary of the New Testament (1981), pp. 1113-1115.

In Whose Name Do You Call?

Greetings in the Name of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ.

by Walter Gorden

To further expand upon the issue of Christian common Law (Biblical Law applied), and how this will effect the Lawful standing of Christian Ministers, Pastors, Preachers, Elders, Evangelicals, etc., please allow me to display some additional historical paths.

In Issue the Thirty-third under the article entitled, "In Whose Name Do You Call?" three primary issues were discussed. First, the foundational Truth why all of the King's Men must invoke a venue in Law through Christ Jesus before speaking to anyone on the telephone. Second, why ordained ministers of God do not have an absolute corner on Biblical Truth, or proper Scriptural interpretation without understanding History and Law, and finally, how David Dudley Field's codification from 1839 to 1857 created the political environment for all of the several states to "remove the whole common law mode of procedure, and to substitute in its place the practice of the Civil Law" and totally secularized law through the creation of "complete codes of civil and criminal procedure" which layed the basis for a new legalism, being "a political code, a penal code, and a civil code" and ultimately becoming the basis for the civil operation of the American military style, commercial court system that is in place today.

In this article, my objective is two-fold. First, to introduce you to James Coolidge Carter, L.L.D., and to show how this "evolutionist of law" posthumously aided the legislatures and governors of the States to ultimately evolutionize the "Field Code" to make it more palatable. As stated in the previous article referenced above, "The complete codes of civil and criminal procedure were not reported until Dec. 31, 1849, and were never adopted by the legislature, although some portion of the amendments suggested by the commissioners were gradually incorporated by the legislature into the text of the original and incomplete code enacted in 1848." And finally, to show how the written and unwritten laws created by the evolutionary and reasonable doctrines of humanist men are contrary to the distinct, and separate, written and unwritten Laws of Good and Lawful Christians.

James Coolidge Carter was a member of the New York Bar. In the Prefatory Note of his book entitled, "Law: Its Origin, Growth and Function. Being a Course of Lectures Prepared for Delivery before the Law School of Harvard University" published in 1907, the editor states on page vii:

"Mr. Carter's sense of the importance of the inquiries which he thus describes, and the strong affection which he always entertained for his Alma Mater and which led him to adopt for the expression of his ripened and mature views the form of lectures for delivery before its Law School, are touchingly shown by a provision of his will whereby he gave a large sum to the President and Fellows of Harvard College "which," he said, "I now wish may be applied to the establishment and maintenance in the Law School of the University of a fellowship of General Jurisprudence for the special cultivation and teaching of the distinctions of the donees in respect to the application of this fund. I mention my present preference." This was in addition to another large gift for the general purposes of the University.
"It was Mr. Carter's intention to deliver the lectures in the spring of 1905, and the rough draft of the manuscript was completed only a few days before he was stricken with the brief illness which resulted in his death on February 14, 1905. When he realized that he could never deliver the lectures, he expressed a wish that they be published by his Executors.
"The manuscript had never been finally revised by him; but it has been thought best to print this volume from it just as it left his hand, save the making of a few verbal corrections.

Within this "book on law," great care is taken by Carter to take the reader down the path of legal history. His views are not Christian, or Biblically based--for science, philosophy and Darwinism would place him in conflict with the infallibility of the Holy Scriptures. For example, he says:

"Our earliest records carry us back a few thousand years only, and these exhibit man at a considerably advanced stage of progress. We do not know how long he has been upon earth; but we have sufficient reasons for the belief that he has been here for a period measured by millions of years. What progress may have been made during that period prior to any time of which we have any knowledge, we can not know with any certainty." Page 16.

As a matter of course, this same depraved view is also promoted today. Man's modern science, and recent archeological discoveries, seem to "prove" the argument of the anti-Christian "Christian evolutionist" group who believe that their "pure" race originated with Adam and Eve, and the "corrupt" races originated with the "beasts of the field" millions of years ago. For the depraved of that mindset there are no absolutes, for their evolutionary "knowledge" is wide open to change on their ride of "higher consciousness," and the vastly increased "critical knowledge" of the modernist and revisionist historian. Typical of this depravity of "the theory of evolution" is Carter's statement on Pg. 49:

"There are no Law-givers such as as are reverenced in history. Moses, Lycurgus, and Solon took the customs of their time, and gave them form and furnished better methods of securing their enforcement."

Or, by the "profoundness" of his depraved autonomous reason, he says:

"Under the great process of Evolution, man began to advance--to go no further back--from his savage condition to higher physical, moral, and intellectual levels; and this was not by virtue of his own conscious effort, but because of the nature of his original constitution and the environment in which he was placed. The process thus begun has been carried forward by designed effort, and it is that effort, and the rules which govern it, which most deserve our attention." Page 321.

On a less philosophical note, Carter makes great distinctions when referring to the written and unwritten law:

"The important question which concerns us is, What was the law administered [*before the Norman Conquest, 1066AD] in these tribunals [*Courts of the Hundred, and Courts of the County] and where was it to be found? The answer is very plain. It was custom. There was as yet no legislation, and consequently no written law." .... "All complaints by one man against another, whether of a civil or criminal nature, arose from the fact that something had been done contrary to the complaintant's expectation of what should have been done; and as every man expects that others will act according to custom, the complaint would be in fact, if not in form, that an act contrary to custom had been committed to the injury of the complaintant." Page 59. [*Insertions added, italics in original].

Further, he says:

"In the unwritten law of Custom, such anomalies [legislatively created law] cannot occur, for in that law there are no absolute and arbitrary rules. There is, indeed, one absolute rule, but it is not arbitrary. It is that custom must be obeyed. This is not the expression of will [of the legislature] but the dictate of order. Whether any particular conduct does or does not conform to custom can be told only when it comes for the first time to be displayed, and, in cases of dispute, only by the judges who are the experts appointed by society for that purpose. The vast body of so-called rules of law found in our digests and treatises and mentioned in the reports of decided cases are but the results, and logical deductions from the results of the cases thus decided, arranged and classified with regard to scientific order. None of them are absolute. They are all provisional and subject to modification." Page 233.

In discussing the written law of the modern day State, and additionally, the codification of the natural man's private law, he says:

In the present enlightened age we find a much greater resort to legislation; but the important question is whether its purpose and nature have changed. This is easily answered. The whole of the legislation of any American State, to take an example, is contained in its easily accessible statute-books. We may know the general contents of all of them from an examination of those of one State. They will be found to embrace its fundamental Constitution, creating the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Departments, the organization of the State into political districts, the creation of the various State and local officers and the designation of their duties; provision for the conduct of elections; a system for raising money to support State and local government by taxation and applying it in many different ways; provisions for creating and maintaining public highways, including railroads; for for forming corporations, for preserving the public health, and for supervising many important public concerns, such as banking, insurance, etc., and a multitude of other public provisions including the whole of the law relating to the designating and punishment of crimes. Besides this, we find in the numerous volumes of statute-books vast masses of matter which, though in the form of laws, are not laws in any proper sense. These consist in the making of provisions for the maintenance of the public works of the State, for the building of asylums, hospitals, school-houses, and a great variety of other similar matters. This is but the record of the action of the State in relation to the business in which it is engaged. The State is a great public corporation which conducts a vast mass of business, and the written provisions for this, though in the form of laws, are not essentially different from the minutes of ordinary corporate bodies recording their action. But when we search for any matter relating to the regulation of the ordinary (commercial) conduct of men in their transactions with each other--that is, to Private Law, we find exceedingly little, and we may say that it substantially true that the whole vast body of legislation is confined to Public Law, and that its operation on Private Law (the lex mercatoria) is remote and indirect and aimed only to make the unwritten law of custom more easily and certainly enforced. If we make a similar examination of the Statutes at Large of Great Britain the result is the same; and the same also, if we examine the legislation of Rome in the classic era of jurisprudence.
"There is one great seeming exception in the case of the various codifications of the customary law. We find in Roman Law the great volume of the Pandects; we find the Civil Code in France. There are Civil Codes in Germany. There is a reduction to writing of one or more chapters of Private Law in England; and there are Civil Codes in several American States. But the exception in these cases, when we consider its true nature, is more apparent than real. The law enacted in these Civil Codes was not made by the legislation enacting them. It existed, for the most part, as law before, and the enactment added no force to it. In the case of Rome, France, and Germany the unification of different peoples and provinces into larger nations had made it necessary for the tribunals to enforce different customs for different places, an inconvenient task; but this difference was gradually disappearing in the closer relations brought about by the consolidation of nationalities, and the main purpose of the codification was to hasten the coming uniformity, which could be completely accomplished only by legislation. The motive to such codifications as have taken place in the United States and Great Britain was the supposed increased accessibility of the law by enabling it to be found in a single book, the same motive which led to the production of Digests. The creation of new law was but a small part of the object." Pages 116-118.

We can see from the lengthy quote above, that there is a clear distinction private and public State codified law for "human beings," and the unwritten law, or custom, of "human beings." It is clear that all human laws, codes, customs, etc., as opposed to Christian common Law, or Biblical Law applied, are defective on their face and from their foundation. All law is religious. There is no doubt, through History, that all law and Law originates with some author, that author being either the autonomous reason of human depravity, or the Almighty Father of the Holy Scriptures.

Carter further states that:

"The Koran was a codification of Mahometan law, and if codification could anywhere succeed, it would be in the stationary society of Islam; but the learned doctors who administered that law found it pregnant with the same uncertainties, and removed them in much the same way. Says Gibbon:
"From the Atlantic to the Ganges the Koran is acknowledged as the fundamental code, not only of the theology, but of civil and criminal jurisprudence; and the laws which regulate the actions and the property of mankind are guarded by the infallible and immutable sanction of the will of God. This religious servitude is attended with some practical disadvantage; the illiterate legislator had been often misled by his own prejudices and those of his country; and the institutions of the Arabian desert may be ill-adapted to the wealth and numbers of Ispahan and Constantinople. On these occasions the Cadhi respectfully places on his head the holy volume and substitutes a dexterous interpretation more apposite to the principles of equity and the manners and policy of the times." Gibbon, vol.vi, p. 283.

"The extent of the uncertainty thus necessarily incident to statutory law is vastly greater than commonly supposed. The believers in codification are deluged by the notion that there is by means of language a capability, not only in making all things known by any persons clearly intelligible to others, but of making things clearly known which are in their nature uncertain. But upon any just comparison it will be found that the sum of the uncertainties arising from statutory law is many times greater in proportion to its extent than that met with in the administration of unwritten law. Such means of comparison as are open to us exhibit a significant result." Pages 282-284.

In conclusion, the written law and unwritten law, which govern the Good and Lawful Christian Man and Woman in all areas of life come from the Holy, Divine, Revealed and Infallible Scriptures. For the Christian people must return to the old paths, and seek the good ways, and walk therein (Isa 58:12, Jer. 6:16). The Scriptures teach that many Christians have fallen short of their duty to uphold the unwritten and written Law of His Word. A double witness by Matthew and Mark state:

"But in vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Matthew 15:9
"Howbeit in vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And He said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." Mark 7:7-9.

During his captivity at Rome, Paul spoke to the flourishing church in the commercial metropolis at Ephesus:

"That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. But ye have not so learned Christ; If so be that ye have heard Him, and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus: That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." Eph. 4:14-24

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Christian Humanism

The view that individuals and their culture have value in the Christian life. Justin Martyr appears to have been the first to offer a formulation of Christianity that included an acceptance of classical achievements as he stated in the Apology (1.46) that Christ the Word had put culture under his control. Such an approach, he believed, would restrain believers from leading vulgar lives while at the same time keeping them from attaching more importance to human culture than to the truths of the faith.

During the Middle Ages little attention was paid to humanism, but with the beginning of the Renaissance there was a revival of that perspective. Renaissance humanism was both an outlook and a method. It has been described as "man's discovery of himself and the world." The worth of earthly existence for its own sake was accepted, and the otherworldliness of medieval Christianity was disparaged. Humanists believed that the pursuit of secular life was not only proper but even meritorious. Closely allied to the new view of worldly life was a devotion to nature and its beauty as part of a broadened religious outlook. Yet Renaissance humanism must be viewed from another vantage point. Those involved in the movement were devoted to the studia humanitatis, or the liberal arts, including history, literary criticism, grammar, poetry, philology, and rhetoric. These subjects were taught from classical texts of the Greco-Roman period and were intended to help students understand and deal with other people. In addition, the humanists valued ancient artifacts and manuscripts and tried to revive classical life styles.

Many Christians, including Savonarola and Zwingli, reacted against the more secular approach of humanism; but others such as John Colet, Thomas More, and Erasmus felt that great benefits would come from the revival of classicism and the development of historical criticism. It has been pointed out that even John Calvin reveals the influence of humanism. The new Renaissance philological tools were helpful in studying the Bible, and the ancient view of man held the promise for better government and greater social justice. A wedding of the ethical and social concern of the Renaissance with the introspective force of Christianity held the possibility for church renewal in the minds of many sixteenth century scholars. Christian humanist teaching was kept alive by many Anglicans, by the moderates in the Church of Scotland, by certain German pietists, and through the philosophy of Kant. It continues in the twentieth century among such writers as Jacques Maritain and Hans Kung.

Those who believe that the Christian revelation has a humanistic emphasis point to the fact that man was made in the image of God, that Jesus Christ became man through the incarnation, and that the worth of the individual is a consistent theme in the teaching of Jesus. Indeed, when asked to give a summary of the life that pleases God, Christ advised his listeners to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" and to "love your neighbor as yourself" (Matt. 22:37, 39).

Bibliography. L. Bouyer, Christian Humanism; Q. Breen, John Calvin: A Study in French Humanism; H. Kung, On Being a Christian; J. Maritain, True Humanism; J. I. Packer, Knowing Man; G. Toffanin, History of Humanism; C. Trinkaus, In Our Image and Likeness; W. Bouwsma, The Interpretation of Renaissance Humanism.

A Portion of a Sermon Delivered on Lord's Day Evening September 20, 1868 by Charles Spurgeon

Knowing and Doing

"If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them."-- John 13:12.

The original scope of these words was just this-- "If, as you say, you have understood the meaning of this-- the washing of your feet by your Master; if you have comprehended my intention in so doing, then it will be to your lasting honour and happiness if you do the same. I have symbolically represented to you, by washing your feet, certain virtues; you shall be a happy people if these virtues be found in you and abound." And have we not abundant proof that our Lord spoke the truth, for where are churches so happy as where they are knit together in brotherly love, where they have laid aside contentions about priority and distinction, and where each one becomes a servant of all, every one willing to take the lowest place, and no one contending who shall be the greatest? May we prove, as I trust in our measure we have already done, how true these words are, and never may Diotrephes be in our midst to strive for the preeminence, nor a root of bitterness spring up to trouble us. May we every one try to be like our Lord, and happy indeed shall we be, in such a case.

You will notice in the text that there are two "ifs"-- "If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them" <Jn 13:17>. It appears, then, first, that genuine and acceptable service to Christ should be based upon intelligent knowledge-- "If ye know these things"; and secondly, that all intelligent understanding of the things of God should lead us to the practice of them-- "Happy are ye if ye do them." The first "If" shall be taken first-- "If ye know these things":

Our first observation is that this is an "if" even in this country. "If ye know these things." Alas! even in such a city as this, where the Gospel is to be heard in all our streets, and Bibles are to be found in all our homes, it is so sad that tens of thousands do not know these things. They are so careless about what God has revealed, that they will not even cross the threshold to listen to the Word of God. This day what a mass of Sabbath-breaking has grieved the Spirit of God! All around us there are those who are toiling hard six days in the week for themselves, and cannot give to their God, and, I may add, to their truer and nobler selves, this one day in which to think of Him. He has written to them the great things of His law, and they have trifled therewith. He speaks to them, and invites them to hear that their souls may live, but they would rather rest in their beds, or be found in any kind of pleasure sooner than seeking pleasure in the ways of God. Pity this poor city, you who know its sins: pray for it, you who know its high privileges and solemn responsibilites: work for it, you who have power with the heavenly Father, until at last the blessing shall come, and men shall no longer need to say to their fellows, "Know the Lord."